OpenOffice Attracts its First Virus (and the press notices)

"In stark contrast, there were more than 60 new viruses for Windows in May 2006 alone. " http://desktoplinux.com/articles/AT5613250391.html

grouch:

>No one runs from a stampeding snail.

I think that's right, but it's hard to be sure because you don't have to run very fast to escape a stampeding snail.

dinotrac:

Witness the slow erosion of the Constitution here in the U.S. It doesn't seem to require due process any more to spy on citizens. Nobody seems particularly disturbed by a president who preaches about "faith-based initiatives".

Note the way that slow, drip-feed FUD is allowed to go largely unchallenged. People assume that computers get viruses, and that Microsoft is just another business.

We tend to stand still while being attacked by a snail.

grouch,

Along with killer bees and fire ants, snails don't survive the winters well in this area of the country. I wish I could say the same for Microsoft.

grouch:

Well, I'll admit that slow erosion is a little sneakier than earlier affronts like the New Deal or Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus. Since when, by the way, was due process required to spy on citizens?

Seems to me, old J. Edgar never let such a thing get in his way.

Oh, I know that Congress passed a couple of laws, but that old separation of powers thing leaves more than a few questions as to their legitimacy.

The bigger problem, and one that leads to Constitutional seams being pushed to, if not past, the bursting point, is the general degradation of the political process.

Peggy Noonan wrote an interesting piece on that recently:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/

Interesting, and fairly accurate, except for the fear of terrorism part. Most people I know aren't half as afraid of terrorists as they are of the government. The terrorist within as it were. I don't see that any political process is going to fix that.

jimf -

WRT fear of terrorists:

I suspect you're right. Too bad, too, especially in light of the recent bust in Toronto.

It's a funny thing. I suspect most people felt considerably less safe on September 12 than they did on September 10, 2001. As history shows, however, the danger was bigger on the tenth.

I think it's human nature -- try to forget about very scary things over which we seem to have little or no control. May make sense, too. Bad as 9/11 was, 99.999 per-cent of us survived it.

dinotrac:

Thanks for that link. I share the same feelings as Ms. Noonan expresses in that article; she says it without as much venom, though. ;)

>"Since when, by the way, was due process required to spy on citizens?"

December 15, 1791, date of ratification of the first ten amendments. Amendment IV: "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."

It was 1967 when the Supreme Court ruled that wiretaps were searches and in 1972 it ruled, in part:

"The freedoms of the Fourth Amendment cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillances are conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch without the detached judgment of a neutral magistrate. Pp. 316-318." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vo...

As for old J. Edgar, he was about the nearest thing to a secret dictator that this country ever had.

grouch:

The problem with that becomes the definition of spying and the needs of national security. I think you'll find that the President has substantial powers when legitimate nation security interests come to play.

Awful as it was, for example, the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII was upheld by the Supreme Court.

At any rate, I can never resist the opportunity to yank your chain just a little !! ;0)

As to J. Edgar, it seems the only thing I might quibble with you on is the word "secret".

dinotrac: >"I think you'll find that the President has substantial powers when legitimate nation security interests come to play."

That was the focus of the 1972 case that went before the Supreme Court. Nixon claimed he had such powers in the interest of national security. The ruling was unanimous against his view.

From at least the 1940s through to 1967, wiretaps were used without court orders. That's the year the Supreme Court ruled that such eavesdropping was a search.

The [un]Patriot Act does not trump the Constitution. Dubya nor Congress have the power to overthrow the Bill of Rights. If our current Supreme Court manages to wiggle around to rubber stamp the illegal wiretaps, it will be a very good indicator that we have a rogue government in place.

grouch:

I haven't revisited the Nixon case in a long time, so I'm a bit out on a limb here. I don't recall their saying the President didn't have powers so much as invalidating Nixon's claim -- ie, the power to operate for the preservation of national security cannot be invoked as a blanket shield to cover everything a President does.

dinotrac:

It's a 34 year old case. That's why I quoted from it above and provided a link to the Supreme Court ruling. The part I quoted is directly relevant to warrantless spying by the president or any other part of the executive branch. A claim of national security does not relieve the government of the requirement to get a warrant from a judge before listening in on private conversations.

grouch:

Go back and read it. You'll see that they allow for significant lattitude in Constitutionally permissible proceduers -- including approaches that do not identify the "precise" targets of surveillance.

It also helps to remember the fact scenario of the time: Heavy government surveillance of people involved in anti-war activities. "Domestic security" was a smokescreen for squashing dissent.

I don't know if surveillance by the current administration -- which, by the way, neither you nor I know the extent of -- would pass Constituional muster or not. That, old man, is why we have the courts.

dinotrac:

I did read it, before posting. Your interpretation is unique.

grouch:

Interpretation nothing -- near direct lift from the text of the opinion, especially the bit about precise targets of intelligence.

dinotrac:

The only use of "precise" in the context you mention is where the Supreme Court was describing the scope of the decision. The paragraph begins:

"Moreover, we do not hold that the same type of standards and procedures prescribed by Title III are necessarily applicable to this case."

This does not change the holding that electronic, domestic surveillance requires "prior judicial approval". They simply point out that the opinion does not define the "standards and procedures" needed to determine probable cause for domestic surveillance. There is nothing in the opinion that removes the burden of obtaining a warrant.

A couple of things:

How do you define domestic surveillance?

For example, is surveillance of a foreign agent on US soil domestic surveillance?

Some might say yes, but, technically speaking, it isn't.

Is capturing the mass of transmissions without regard to source and filtering them for trip words, etc, domestic surveillance? Don't know.

Etc.

Er... with regard to language, perhaps you missed this bit in what is euphemistically called the majority opinion:

Quoting: We recognize that domestic security surveillance may involve different policy and practical considerations from the surveillance of "ordinary crime." The gathering of security intelligence is often long range and involves the interrelation of various sources and types of information. The exact targets of such surveillance may be more difficult to identify than in surveillance operations against many types of crime specified in Title III. Often, too, the emphasis of domestic intelligence gathering is on the prevention of unlawful activity or the enhancement of the Government's preparedness for some possible future crisis or emergency. Thus, the focus of domestic surveillance may be less precise than that directed against more conventional types of crime.

Note -- this is dicta (like lots of other stuff in the opnion), not holding. Holdings cover the facts before the court and dicta tries to flesh out the reasoning. Still, useful.

Anything coming out of the White House I view with the same disbelief as anything that comes out of Ballmergates's mouths. That's why we need transparency and accountability everywhere. Yeah I know's that commie crap. Bad me.

> Yeah I know's that commie crap

Actually all governments seem to favor the opaque model.

dinotrac: >"Er... with regard to language, perhaps you missed this bit in what is euphemistically called the majority opinion:"

Er, it would be hard to miss that since it is the paragraph from which I quoted the first sentence.

Why do you say, "euphemistically called the majority opinion"? Would you care to point to a single dissenting opinion among the Supreme Court justices?

Ummm...

There were three opinions in the case: the majority opinion and two concurring opinions.

A concurring opinion is generally written when a justice agrees with the holding, but may agree only in part or not at all with the reasoning the majority used to get there.