Slashdot Mirror


Judge: NSA Phone Program Likely Unconstitutional

schwit1 writes in with the latest on an U.S. District Court ruling over NSA spying. "A federal judge ruled Monday that the National Security Agency's phone surveillance program is likely unconstitutional, Politico reports. U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon said that the agency's controversial program, first unveiled by former government contractor Edward Snowden earlier this year, appears to violate the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which states that the 'right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.' 'I cannot imagine a more "indiscriminate" and "arbitrary invasion" than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying it and analyzing it without judicial approval,' Leon wrote in the ruling. The federal ruling came down after activist Larry Klayman filed a lawsuit in June over the program. The suit claimed that the NSA's surveillance 'violates the U.S. Constitution and also federal laws, including, but not limited to, the outrageous breach of privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of association, and the due process rights of American citizens.'"

22 of 345 comments (clear)

  1. About time by Todd+Palin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now the NSA will appeal. Off to the Supreme Court it goes. About fucking time. It is time to enforce the fourth amendment. I hope there are many more fourth amendment challenges in the pipeline. The bill of rights is the only thing left to save us from government tyranny.

    1. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't worry, even if they thought it wasn't below them to ignore this, the president's administration will make up an excuse to "justify" the agency's practices. Or come up with another dog and pony show of an "oversight" committee made up of people with a complete conflict of interest regarding privacy and constitutionality.

    2. Re:About time by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Off to the Supreme Court it goes.

      To get rejected for lack of standing, or some other legalistic mumbo jumbo.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:About time by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "The problem with knee-jerk assessments, which most people are operating under (Fourth Amendment, unreasonable search and seizure) is that there are all sorts of vague bits of the constitution and other amendments which leave wiggle room for things which fall under "National Security" and have done for a long time.

      There's this comical belief that Congress should have the ability to approve of War Powers, which the constitution clearly states are those powers reserved to the President. Which is a way of saying, what you think it should be and how it is is not always clear cut. "

      Wow. You have a pretty bizarre view of the Constitution. I suggest you sit down and actually read it sometime. Soon.

    4. Re:About time by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No. There is no "lack of standing" excuse anymore.

      And who is going to correct SCOTUS if they choose to pretend that there is?

      We now have proof beyond doubt -- many times over

      We also have a SCOTUS that has been stuffed with authoritarian sycophants.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:About time by NatasRevol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When a black body like the NSA oversteps their bounds, especially to the degree they’ve admitted, much less been reported, then they need to be stopped.

      The real problem is this. You can’t do anything about it. You can elect all the new politicians you want. You can chuck out anyone you want in elected positions. The NSA isn’t elected, and isn’t going anywhere. And does know ALL the skeletons of those who are elected. So that they can be manipulated to not looking into the NSA activities.

      THAT’S why they need to be stopped.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    6. Re:About time by asylumx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      one of many extremely poor choices by the court in the Bush years(they didn't stop with bad decisions when Obama arrived, not saying that).

      I'm glad some people recognize that this isn't anything new. When the Patriot Act passed, many of us saw this coming but it seems like all the outcry now is just too late. It was obvious that the gov't would data mine the entire population to accomplish their goal, and it was obvious that the data they were collecting and mining would end up getting misused by people all over the chain of command. Lo and behold, that is exactly what is happening.

      This does need to go to the supreme court, and hopefully the court will see reason. I'm not sure what I expect to happen, though, since (as you mentioned) both parties have shown that this kind of surveillance is something they support.

    7. Re:About time by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they're not going to be meaningfully stopped, then their version of blackmailing is already working.

      There isn't any practical difference.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    8. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If a President is going to have War Powers, shouldn't there be a war going on?

      Dude, we've always been at war with Eastasia.

    9. Re:About time by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's this comical belief that Congress should have the ability to approve of War Powers, which the constitution clearly states are those powers reserved to the President.

      Actually the constitution gives congress the ability to declare war. You are actually thinking about the War Powers Resolution of 1973 which allows the president to have 48 hours to notify congress that he committed armed forces to military action and they can't operate more than 60 days without authorization from congress or a declaration of war.

      Anyway the War Powers Resolution wasn't used to authorize the NSA to collect phone data. It was explicitly given by Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act of 2001. This surveillance program was enacted by congress and approved by the president. This is not a case of executive power being abused, instead this is an abusive law.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    10. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Patriot Act was passed in both the senate and house of representatives with a veto proof 98 senators and 357 house representatives.

      It was reauthorized in 2006 with a veto proof 89 senators and an almost veto proof 280 house of representatives.

      Quit blaming the presidents when congress is fully invested in the law.

    11. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is the "War on Constitution". So far, the government is winning.

    12. Re:About time by AndrewBuck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And you know this how? I voted for Obama the first time because he was an obviously better choice than McCain/Palin (at least in my opinon anyway) but I did not vote for him in the second term because I saw how he failed to live up to what he promised and therefore he didn't get my vote.

      In case you are wondering in 2012 I voted for the candidate who was arrested during the campaign. I will leave it as an excercise to the reader to work out who this was.

      -AndrewBuck

    13. Re: About time by chihowa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While's it's true that a "veto-proof" majority will be able to pass a law, it doesn't mean that the president is barred from attempting to veto it (even though the veto will likely be overridden). The president vetoing a bill that will pass anyway is a form of protest. The president signing a bill is a declaration that he accepts and agrees with the bill. Any other interpretation is just politics.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    14. Re: About time by AndrewBuck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even if they had a veto proof majority the president can still veto the bill as a symbolic act that they do not support it. I am too lazy to look up the history of the veto to find out how often this has occurred but I am sure there have been instances of it, and in a properly functioning system of checks and balances it should actually be a fairly common thing. Look at how often the house and the senate disagree about various issues even though (gerrymandering aside) it is the same pool of voters electing both bodies.

      If the president vetoes and it goes back through the houses and becomes law anyway, this is still a different situation than if the president just signs it with no opposition (or with a bullshit signing statement with no actual legal weight behind it).

      -AndrewBuck

  2. You've got it wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    About fucking time. It is time to enforce the fourth amendment.

    It isn't that the 4th Amendment isn't being enforced, but rather that there are conflicting ideas about how the 4th Amendment applies. I'm sure you think you know, but is yet to be seen how the courts will decide. It isn't 1789 anymore, and the 4th Amendment has been applied to a lot of situations and there is a lot of legal history (precedent) as to how it applies. It is entirely possible, maybe even likely that they will win at the trial court and lose on appeal. Only time will tell.

    The fact that there are now courts in two different jurisdictions in conflict could make review by the Supreme Court more likely if the result doesn't change on appeal. It is way too early to pop champagne yet, there is still a long road ahead before this is truly decided.

  3. Re:Here is a reaction by Snowden upon this ruling by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Chin up, Mr. Snowden. The government of the US may believe you're a traitor, but the time will come when you're seen as one of the heroes and guardians of liberty.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  4. hmmmm. by jafac · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I reckon it's about time for another "crisis" to remind us all why we need to keep the NSA apprised of all of our private activity. For our own safety, of course.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  5. Re:Follow up Headline by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "You could, but frankly, we'd rather talk about the 16.76 GB of underage duck-rape porn that you downloaded between August 6, 2004 and September 30 of the same year. Why don't you have a seat over there?"

  6. Re:I say by mugnyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because not knowing that everything you do is traced is safer than knowing? He broke the law because the US government is lying to its citizens. Is the government completely immune to breaking the law? Should Watergate have only been about two rogue reporters?

  7. Listen to history by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From TFCD: "Indeed, I have little doubt that the author of our Constiution, James Madison, who cautioned us to beware "the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power," would be aghast."

    The next time someone, seeking to expand the government's power, uses the meme "those founding fathers' ideas don't apply to our modern times", keep the above in mind. Their theories predict all this assholery with stunning accuracy. And that is due to studying history as hundreds of governments play out over thousands of years. Even the belief pure democracy won't fall prey to this is 100% contraindicated based on long-term history.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  8. Re:Applies to call content only ? by achbed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You are talking about a pen register. "Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required." --Wikipedia This is what I think the NSA is referring to when they talk about "meta-data" with regards to cell phone tracking.

    The judge attacked the application of that case directly. Smith v Maryland dealt with a few days of calls from one number, with no past history. Not the explicit collection of the entire country's phone records from all providers, and maintaining a daily-updated database of at least 5 years worth of history with instant query capability across the entire time span. Smith was a very limited operation, the NSA's data collectino is by its very construction immense in scope with no justification except "BOO TERROR".