Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Explain the third amendment bit: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Who exactly is suggesting we house soldiers in peoples' houses?




If I understand the GP correctly, the claim is that we are now perpetually at cyberwar and CISPA would invite cyberwarriors into everyone's home.


How is that "quartering soldiers?" Or do words just mean whatever we want them to mean?


Well, if what you do virtually on line can be considered on a par with what you do physically, so inciting terrorism on facebook for example, there has to be some sort of parallel with virtual soldiers, which we could refer to as spy service spybots, spying on out computers in our homes, or on our mobile devices.

Im not sure the government can on one had work that logic to prosecute citizens, while not applying the same logic to its own activities.

So, things have moved on and so "quartering soldiers" applied to today's society should apply with the same logic used elsewhere. Especially if elsewhere is the law.

Words don't mean what ever we want, but their meaning does change and evolve over time to reflect current society.


> Well, if what you do virtually on line can be considered on a par with what you do physically

But it isn't. That's why e.g. the CFAA is separate from plain old criminal trespass.

> Words don't mean what ever we want, but their meaning does change and evolve over time to reflect current society.

Sure words evolve, but some words are more amenable to evolution than others. "Quartering soldiers" is a very specific term, referencing a very specific grievance that the colonists had with the British. It has nothing to do with spying--the grievance was about being forced to "quarter" (literally, to furnish with lodging) soldiers and bear the expense of doing so.


> Words don't mean what ever we want, but their meaning does change and evolve over time to reflect current society.

This is true, but there is some matter of consensus for language shift. Furthermore, if the meaning of words shift, laws become invalid rather than simply applying themselves overbroadly. A law containing the word A meaning B does not suddenly include C, D, and E because society moves on.

This is obvious in any other setting.


More like the farmers who grow the food we eat would be begging the cyberwarriors to look at the footprints the bandits left behind.

But hey, what's accuracy when you've got passion!


That is quite a stretch.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: