Slashdot Mirror
Judge Denies Administration Request To Delay ACLU Metadata Lawsuit
sl4shd0rk writes "Federal Judge William Pauley has dismissed an Obama Administration request to delay a hearing on Verizon/NSA data sifting. The ACLU has argued that the sifting is not authorized by statute and even if it were it would still be unconstitutional. The Obama Administration requested the delay on the grounds it needed more time to search through its classified material to determine what was suitable for disclosure."
See also the case docket. Motions must be filed by August 26th, and oral arguments begin on November 1st.
So then... you are saying that digital information can be considered as physical, personal property?
No, but some information about us as citizens has been determined as being private. Would the founders have objected to England opening your mail, making copies of the contents and then sending the original on to it's destination? Of course they would have.
Except collection of meta-data would be about the equivalent of the post office scaning in your mail's recipient and sender information. Which it does anyway. That information is retained for some period after the mail has been delivered.
And copying of said information constitues as search and seizure?
It does indeed. See above example.
Got it. When a network switch of your ISP buffers any amount of data for any period, it also constitutes as search and seizure.
I guess that would make the RIAA's argument that copying is the equivalent of stealing true huh?
Steeling is not an illegal search. Someone copying digital files that are ALREADY PUBLIC is not garnering any private information about the content owner. These are 2 completely separate subjects. I think that even those that think Piracy of movies and music is fine would object to someone hacking the same companies servers and publishing the health records of all their employees.
I was not refering to anything regarding the content of the information, but the information itself. Effects by it's classical definition refers to movable property/goods. Seizure by it's classical definition means to forcefully capture something by use of power. If you capture something, then you are depriving an individual of what has been captured. So if copying information can be constituted as seizure then it would make the RIAAs argument that copying is equivalent of theft since you are somehow depriving someone of something by the sole act of copying.
I'm sure our fore-fathers anticipated technological changes over the course of the next several centuries and took it into account when they wrote this document.
They did not, and they didn't need to. Our for-fathers understood human nature, which hasn't changed in thousands of years. The encroachment of tyranny on the civil liberties of the people always comes with he promise of protection from some new insidious threat. But rarely are the threats new. People have been blowing up buildings, shooting up schools, committing mail fraud and axe murders since the dawn of this country. None of this is new except our media exposure to it.
I guess we can continue to hang onto this 200 year old document and spout it as the clear and true gosepel though.
If wisdom prevails, we certainly will.
Except the constitution is not clear (enough). While it's true that people have been blowing up buildings etc.. , technology has given each individual more power to cause more damage/harm than 200 years ago. I doubt a person with a musket could kill 20 or so school children or that one of the first creations by the Wright brothers could bring down a 100+ story structure made of cement and steel. If wisdom truly does prevail, people will learn that the world has changed within the last couple hundred years and that clinging to ideals without compromise is silly.