Re:Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data
by zeveb on Tuesday October 04, 2016 @01:41PM
(#12637483)
That just goes to show that the Constitution, while imperfect, is better than what we have now.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data
by cloudjacker on Tuesday October 04, 2016 @02:13PM
(#12637829)
I'm not sure what you mean, all of those agencies are formed under the constitution and the systems that support them are also abiding by the constitution
Re:Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data
by zeveb on Tuesday October 04, 2016 @02:39PM
(#12638077)
The Constitution states, 'no Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed'; to the extent that those executive agencies' enabling legislation permits ex post facto regulations, that legislation is unconstitutional.
Re:Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data
by fweespeech on Tuesday October 04, 2016 @05:53PM
(#12639844)
The Government can simply ban the use of that software without a license set at a future date (i.e. 1/1/2017).
New Regulation -> Future Date -> Ex post facto claims don't happen.
That is the process my original comment intended to imply.
Re:Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data
by nickpsecurity on Tuesday October 04, 2016 @08:57PM
(#12640889)
They're definitely not. They've resisted due process for some time. NSA's reps even argued in Jewel case that judicial branch shouldn't be allowed involvement at all. Which is sort of the status quo for intelligence agencies and courts. Prosecutors similarly have a combo of broad powers, immunity in common abuses, and virtually no accountability. The government as it exists certainly doesn't run in the framework of the Constitution except in a partial way.