or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › NSA: Checking the Phones
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NSA: Checking the Phones - Page 3

post #81 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
And a corporation that breaks its "promise" in a legal document is shit out of luck... as opposed to that friend of yours...

From the Apple privacy policy (linked earlier):

Quote:
At times we may be required by law or litigation to disclose your personal information. We may also disclose information about you if we determine that for national security, law enforcement, or other issues of public importance, disclosure is necessary.
post #82 of 215
Anyone here know how many times the word "privacy" appears in the U.S. constitution?
post #83 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
There are several statutes that the FTC enforces with regard to enforcement of private information in the private sector. Not to mention the existence of state by state laws...

This doesn't make them inherent "rights". These "rights" can clearly be taken away.
post #84 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
This doesn't make them inherent "rights". These "rights" can clearly be taken away.

Not unless by act of congress.

There are no inherent rights.

The bill of rights is a mutable document.

You are attempting to stand on a jelly mountain of semantics.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #85 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Anyone here know how many times the word "privacy" appears in the U.S. constitution?

How old is the definition of the word privacy as we use it now?

Hint: The constitution is older.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #86 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
How old is the definition of the word privacy as we use it now?

Hint: The constitution is older.

Umm...wrong.

Quote:
c.1380, from L. privatus "set apart, belonging to oneself" (not to the state), used in contrast to publicus, communis; originally pp. stem of privare "to separate, deprive," from privus "one's own, individual," from Old L. pri "before." Replaced O.E. syndrig. Grew popular 17c. as a preferred alternative to the snobbish overtones in common. Meaning "not open to the public" is from 1398. Of persons, "not holding public office" it is recorded from 1432. Private soldier "one below the rank of a non-commissioned officer" is from 1579. Private parts "the pudenda" is from 1785. Private enterprise first recorded 1844. Privacy is first recorded c.1450. Privatization is attested from 1959; privatize first recorded 1968.

In use over 300 years before the U.S. constitution was written.
post #87 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Not unless by act of congress.

There are no inherent rights.

The bill of rights is a mutable document.

We are talking about constitutional rights.

Yes, the BoR is mutable...but it hasn't been mutated to include a "right of privacy" and none is listed in it.

In fact this "right" that we assume/infer we have is easily "pierced" or "overturned" by court-order/warrant. Not so the enumerated rights in the BoR (unless explicitly allowed for in the BoR).
post #88 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Anyone here know how many times the word "privacy" appears in the U.S. constitution?

Ooh! Oooh! Fun time with the constitution!

How many times does "cottage cheese" appear in it?

How many times does "freedom to use cream in coffee" appear in it?

How many times does "freedom to prefer tabby cats to tortoiseshell" appear?

To argue that because something DOESN'T appear in the constitution it is therefore not a protected right opens the door to all kinds of fun and games. If it's not in the consitution, we therefore don't have a right to it.

Want to guess why the EU constitution was such a nightmare?

And I'm glad to see that you quoted the OED entry on "privacy":

Quote:
c.1380, from L. privatus "set apart, belonging to oneself" (not to the state), used in contrast to publicus, communis; originally pp. stem of privare "to separate, deprive," from privus "one's own, individual," from Old L. pri "before." Replaced O.E. syndrig. Grew popular 17c. as a preferred alternative to the snobbish overtones in common. Meaning "not open to the public" is from 1398. Of persons, "not holding public office" it is recorded from 1432. Private soldier "one below the rank of a non-commissioned officer" is from 1579. Private parts "the pudenda" is from 1785. Private enterprise first recorded 1844. Privacy is first recorded c.1450. Privatization is attested from 1959; privatize first recorded 1968.

You should keep in mind when you make a case like this that the meaning of "private" from 1380 through about 1850 (when it really starts to change into the modern definition) is also occurring at a time when it was simply a given that the monarch was chosen by Godand moreover, that there are some people who are simply better than others by virtue of their birth. And, of course, that the American colonies were rebelling against God and all that he has deemed to be orderly.

Anyway. Is there anything else not in the constitution you're willing to give up? Right to purchase the house you want? To live where you want? To work in whatever field you want?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #89 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Umm...wrong.



In use over 300 years before the U.S. constitution was written.

Ahem... The modern definition, and not a sort of abstract sense of dwelling was first developed in the mid-19th century...

You have to be careful with the age of words, since they change meaning; the meaning we are discussing is younger than the constitution so there wouldn't be the word privacy in the constitution. The sense of our modern definition is simply too young.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #90 of 215
At the time of the Constitution, Tomas Jefferson wrote, "all men are created equal", a phrase that did not include a large portion of the population: blacks, women...Today "men" is understood as "mankind" and these groups are included. Now there are debates over gays and other groups and their rights, their respective equality to the perceived "norm". The meanings of words change very rapidly.

Our notion of privacy is also now changing quickly apace with the ability for people to invade it. Twenty years ago, identity theft was no great matter, though it happened. Now, with the Internet and computers in general, it has become a major issue, raising the need for improved guarantees of our privacy.

If this spying had happened 20 years ago, not much could have been done with the data because of the lack of any true capability to deal with its vastness. Modern computers make it a possibility, and thus raise the fear that the data is also being used for the wrong purpose, thus our feeling that it is an invasion of our privacy. So, again, the definition, or better yet, the realm of interpretation of the meaning of an action has changed over a very short period of time.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #91 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
To argue that because something DOESN'T appear in the constitution it is therefore not a protected right opens the door to all kinds of fun and games. If it's not in the consitution, we therefore don't have a right to it.

That isn't the only argument. Look how easily this "right" is breached as compared to the enumerated ones for example. I cannot be compelled to testify against myself by a simple court order (but my "right" to privacy of bank records can be revoked this way). I cannot be denied a speedy trial by simple court order (but my "right" to privacy of phone records can be revoked this way).

The "right" of privacy is an assumption...an inference...really nothing more.
post #92 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
You should keep in mind when you make a case like this that the meaning of "private" from 1380 through about 1850 (when it really starts to change into the modern definition)

Care to at least cite a source on this?
post #93 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Bergermeister
At the time of the Constitution, Tomas Jefferson wrote, "all men are created equal", a phrase that did not include a large portion of the population: blacks, women...Today "men" is understood as "mankind" and these groups are included. Now there are debates over gays and other groups and their rights, their respective equality to the perceived "norm". The meanings of words change very rapidly.

OK...but the word "privacy" existed then and was never used ("private" was though). So the argument you make here would be more relevent if there was a clearly enumerated "right of privacy" declared, but was interpreted to mean something different 200 years ago.
post #94 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Right to purchase the house you want? To live where you want? To work in whatever field you want?

Please try come up with some less ridiculous examples. I don't have those "rights", not does anyone else. Think (carefully this time) about what you are saying here.
post #95 of 215
This isn't really a privacy (14th amendment) issue, it's a 4th amendment (warrants and searches and all that) issue, even though it seems like a privacy issue. Privacy is relevant to things like birth control and abortion etc., whereas this is about the government engaging in searches without warrant.

BTW, the word 'privacy' does appear in court decisions, and the courts interpret the constitution, setting the law of the land. If you believe in the American system of government, we most certainly do have a right to privacy. We also have a constitutional right to abortion, despite the fact that the word abortion is not in the constitution.
post #96 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
No. You are wrong. You are correct that it is illegal for someone to record my phone coversations without a court order. But we aren't talking about recording conversations (straw man). We are talking about a record of the event of the conversation. If I make a phone call to someone, there is nothing, absolutely nothing that guarantees that the fact that call took place will remain a secret or private.

According to what I've read, there are laws governing phone records and not just content. The original article referenced Section 222 of the Communications act. A warrant is needed to obtain phone records.
post #97 of 215
The Cui Bono aspect of the 9/11 attacks can now be viewed in yet harsher light.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #98 of 215
Chril Cullia, are you actually defending this partial abnegation of your privacy?

Forget whether the right to privacy is constitutionally enshrined for a moment. Are you actually defending what your government's done?
post #99 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Are you actually defending what your government's done?

No.

( and next time spell my name right, please )
post #100 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
According to what I've read, there are laws governing phone records and not just content. The original article referenced Section 222 of the Communications act. A warrant is needed to obtain phone records.

And can be obtained. Proving my point that "there is nothing, absolutely nothing that guarantees that the fact that call took place will remain a secret or private".
post #101 of 215
You keep making that same argument using the same wording, Chris - it's beginning to look a bit like a strawman.

There is, of course, an expectation of privacy unless a search warrant is obtained. THAT is the entire point of the outrage over the NSA doing surveilance of ALL phone calls - and not just those suspected of crimes where the suspicion has enough foundation to persuade a judge to issue a search warrant.

I guess we're all suspects now, huh?
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #102 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
There is, of course, an expectation of privacy unless a search warrant is obtained.

OK. So?

Expectation != right.

P.S. On the "strawman"...I'm not the one who shouted "privacy".

EDIT: To satisfy Lurker. Doesn't change anything though.
post #103 of 215
Quote:
There is, of course, an expectation of privacy unless a search warrant is obtained.

If you're going to quote me, then quote the whole sentence.

There is NO warrant that the NSA has obtained to gather the records of who I called and who called me. Existing laws as well as the Bill of Rights require that they obtain such a warrant before gathering such information.

You seem to be arguing that the possibility that a warrant could be obtained, precludes me from any expectation that such information shall not be obtained by the government.

That's just... um..... bizarre.

It's even more bizarre to say that you are not attempting to defend the NSA's behavior, as you attempt to jump through logical hoops to do exactly that.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #104 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
You seem to be arguing that the possibility that a warrant could be obtained, precludes me from any expectation that such information shall not be obtained by the government.

Exactly. It is an expectation. There are a lot of things I can expect. That doesn't make them a "right".
post #105 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Bill of Rights require that they obtain such a warrant before gathering such information

Not necessarily. Read the BoR. Try it without your "William Douglas Magic Decoder Ring (tm)"
post #106 of 215
Well it would seem the american people don't like it.....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12771821/site/newsweek/
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #107 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Bergermeister
In some areas, even your garbage is considered private; in others not. Several famous cases have been made or lost on this very point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Greenwood
post #108 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Care to at least cite a source on this?

I hadn't wanted to do this, but I'll bite. Here's my song and dance on the evolution of the notion of private.

First, the bit from the OED that you quoted is significant, since once you get past the Latin definitions at the beginning, you wind up with a bunch of stuff about the distinction between "common" folks and gentry. Hence

Quote:
Grew popular 17c. as a preferred alternative to the snobbish overtones in common. Meaning "not open to the public" is from 1398.

Then we get a bunch of stuff about the relationship between the individual and the state: government and military officers.


Now, beginning 10 years after the Am Rev kicks off, we get the first inkling of a modern notion of "privacy" in

Quote:
Private parts "the pudenda" is from 1785.

This makes a great deal of sense that "parts" of the body would become "private" (that is, objects not open to public consumption (no pun intended) or display. This usage probably existed a little before then, but I'd be surprised it was much before about 1750. The idea that the body needs to be covered at all times and that sex, the sex-act and sex-organs are inappropriate for public display is telling here. As William Manchester notes in A World Lit Only By Fire, for a long stretch of European history (up until probably 1200 [I'm guestimating; I don't have it on me]), peasants would have gone naked in the summers and wouldn't have had a last name.

Over the course of the 18th century, there were a number of "purity" movements (roughly analogous to modern movements) that attempted to cut down on public displays of vice. Edward Bristow has composed the seminal work on the subject; see especially his sadly out of print Vice and Vigilance. Bristow reprints a good many records of these purity movements, and at one point a vigilance group is ecstatic over having gotten fornication in public down to a bare minimum.

Around the same time, Boswell's London Journal records a number of public trysts with prostitutes—most famously his having had sex with a woman on (I believe) Westminster Bridge in London (again, I don't have it on me, but I think this is right).

These purity movements are, essentially, the first steps in moving certain activities into the home—and effectively an attempt to distinguish between what is private and what is not.

This is, of course, all about "respectable" culture. The poor were still fucking anywhere they pleased. I'll get to that in a minute.

By the latter part of the 18th century, when America revolts and France comes in our our side, most of the southern half of England is turned into an armed camp. Once the American Revolution morphs into a full-fledged war with France/Napoleon, issues of privacy and the home and sedition and private speech become significant matters in England. For instance, Jane Austen writes a number of characters who take it upon themselves to be on the lookout for potentially seditious behavior (again, roughly analogous to the right-wing blogs of today).

One thread running through all of this (from about 1740) is that there is an increasing interest in and valuation of the individual—and specifically, the "regular" joe. It's no coincidence that the history of the novel in England, and of English poetry after the death of Pope in 1744, is deeply concerned with regular folks—Robinson Crusoe, Pamela, Clarissa, Tom Jones, etc. Sure, these tend to be middling or gentry classes, but they're not Greek or Roman heroes. By the time Wordsworth writes the preface to Lyrical Ballads in 1798, he is interested in the self, the individual, and the language and lives of common men.

Whew. OK. While that bit about poetry may have seemed like a tangent, it's not. Here's how it connects.

During and after the war with France, England had enacted a series of protective measures, first to protect agribusiness (the Corn Laws) and then later to ensure that the agrubusiness got as much money as it could (like the Bush admin). There were poor people starving left and right. There were revolts. On top of this, there were crop failures, economic collapses, and cholera and typhus outbreaks.

What's this got to do with privacy?

Well, by the 1830s, folks began to agitate for enfranchisement—that is, regular folks began to demand a say in the shape of their government. That is, regular folks demanded to determine for themselves their relationship to their government. Prior to this, they had no say and largely didn't care, since it was simply accepted that the King was the King and the aristocrats were the aristocrats. But now, suddenly, we've got the idea of a limited class mobility. Now, all of a sudden, we've got the idea that individuals can be self-determining. We can thank the Am Rev and French Revs for this, largely.

So in 1832, the first of several "Reform Bills" made their way through parliament, effectively turning England into a democracy (the first, I believe, granted the vote to any man owning £10 worth of property).

The poor were still screwed. And screwing. A lot.

Now roll all of this business about self-determination and government and vice into a big ball, and you get another wave of anti-vice movements in the 1820s and 30s running all the way through 1885. For the most part, they go in and bust up brothels and casinos and whatnot and they're mostly tied to an evangelical revival at mid-century.

One of the things that happens from about 1840 to 1860 (see Engels's Condition of the Working Classes and then Mayhew's London Labout and the London Poor and then all of Dickens [especially Hard Times] and Dombey and Son and Oliver Twist) is that increasing attention begins to be paid to the poor.

And we're back to privates.

See, one of the things that Engels describes is how the poor live. Ten or 12 to as room. Parents having sex next to the kids. People defecating out the window.

Hell, in discussing mining work, Engels describes how the women would go topless as they pulled the coal carts up the tracks.

So there's a massive push to instill in the poor this notion of privacy and "modesty." It works, mostly, but we can still see the remnants of it today in all the web pages about trailer-trash and redneck culture, which is really no different than making fun of them for not subscribing to the same set of class-bound definitions of private, public, proper, and modest that others do.

But the idea that there's oddness with the definition of privacy really rears its head in 1864. There's a massive outbreak of syphillis in the port cities, and the "wrens" (roving bands of prostitutes) were all infected and passing it on to other sailors. The government's response, which is odd considering the English parliament was pretty laissez-faire, was to pass the Contagious Diseases Acts. These CD Acts authorized and member of the constabulary to order any woman suspected of being infected to submit to compulsory inspection of her genitals.

The fight to repeal them lasted 20 years.

So...you still think that a government that passes a law forcing any woman to be forcefully inspected (often doing damage in the process, as the inspectors were not always doctors) has the same idea of privacy that we do?

The movement to repeal it would suggest that that definition was changing—rapidly.

Whew.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #109 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Well it would seem the american people don't like it.....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12771821/site/newsweek/

And we know (from other threads) that the American people are always right.

So that settles it.
post #110 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
And we know (from other threads) that the American people are always right.

So that settles it.

Well Chris you can take this to bed with you tonight.

As far as the direction of the country goes the people don't like it or the fact that our crappy president ok'd it.

Also as far as I ( and many others ) are concerned they're right in feeling this way!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #111 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
No.

( and next time spell my name right, please )

And yet you keep issuing post after after post after post questioning the legitimacy of "the right of privacy" in general and the privacy of electronic transactions in particular.

So you're not "defending" the Bush administrations actions, you just think the underlying point moot.

So look: if you don't think "privacy", particularly electronic privacy of the sort embodied by the record of who called who and when, is a distinguishable "right" (and you have argued as much, I hope to God you're not going to start pretending like you haven't), then you can't believe that the NSA data mining operation is of any particular concern. Because nothing of substance is being transgressed.

So either own up to your own reasoning or make a different argument.

(edited to remove lengthy tirade about posting habits)
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #112 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
you can't believe that the NSA data mining operation is of any particular concern. Because nothing of substance is being transgressed.

There is a difference between saying that "nothing of substance is being transgressed" and that I don't think there is a "right to privacy" (per se) in the constitution or otherwise.
post #113 of 215
Here's another opinion:

Quote:
Todd Gaziano, head of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, says the program is legal, especially as NSA does not obtain personal data.

"We can always dream up a constitutional angle, but there's no serious constitutional problem with obtaining telephone numbers that are not personally identifiable, especially when they're being used in this way, an aggregate way, to come up with sort of normal caller profiles," he explained.

This guys is likely more qualified than any of us here. Certainly not the last (or only) word on the subject, but clearly illustrates that this is not a slam dunk for the "privacy" and "illegal search" folks.

No doubt there will be some lawsuits about this...perhaps we'll even the SCOTUS to have their say in it all.
post #114 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
I hadn't wanted to do this, but I'll bite.

You know more about English prostitutes than any respectable man should admit.
post #115 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
There is a difference between saying that "nothing of substance is being transgressed" and that I don't think there is a "right to privacy" (per se) in the constitution or otherwise.

And yet, in our form of government, the questions surrounding the NSA activities are all, in the end, legal questions.

Either the president has the legal authority to authorize an NSA data mining operation or he doesn't.

If he does, then we are left to say things like "Well, he may have the legal authority but I find it discomforting and I wish he wouldn't", which isn't really an argument at all.

If he doesn't, then he has broken the law and must be held accountable.

You're arguing that there is not such thing as a "right to privacy" (as a legal matter), which suggests that you don't believe any laws have been broken.

So if you don't support the data mining operation, what is the basis of your objection? Vague distaste?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #116 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Either the president has the legal authority to authorize an NSA data mining operation or he doesn't.

If he does, then we are left to say things like "Well, he may have the legal authority but I find it discomforting and I wish he wouldn't", which isn't really an argument at all.

If he doesn't, then he has broken the law and must be held accountable.

You're arguing that there is not such thing as a "right to privacy" (as a legal matter), which suggests that you don't believe any laws have been broken.

Correct.

Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
So if you don't support the data mining operation, what is the basis of your objection?

"Well, he may have the legal authority but I find it discomforting and I wish he wouldn't."

Sadly most people take this path (almost immediately):

"I find it discomforting and I wish he wouldn't, therefore he must not have the legal authority."

Or the more general:

"I feel don't like and feel uncomfortable with X, therefore X must be wrong."
post #117 of 215
Midwinter:

Please don't hesitate to let fly with detailed background of the sort you posted above when our squabbling happens to intersect with your areas of expertise.

I find these topics fascinating and your exegesis always engaging, you whore knowing about dog you.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #118 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
I find these topics fascinating and your exegesis always engaging, you whore knowing about dog you.

Yeah. My students this semester desperately wanted to conduct field research.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #119 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
You know more about English prostitutes than any respectable man should admit.

I admit NOTHING!

Edit: I will admit this, though...this has got me thinking about Victorian notions of privacy in ways I'd never done before. Time to do some digging around in the databases!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #120 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox

You're arguing that there is not such thing as a "right to privacy" (as a legal matter), which suggests that you don't believe any laws have been broken.

Actually, CC is arguing that there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy. There is not. But as CC admitted above, there is not constitutionally guaranteed right to buy the house you want or to eat a bagel.

At any rate, this conversation was much better when Aaron Sorkin wrote it:

Quote:
SAM
In 1787, there was a sizable block of delegates who were initially opposed to the
Bill of Rights. One member of the Georgia delegation had to stay by way of opposition:
“If we list the set of rights, some fools in the future are going to claim that people
are entitled only to those rights enumerated and no others. The framers knew...
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › NSA: Checking the Phones