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.'"

Comments

About time

[Todd Palin]

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.

Re:About time

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:About time

[NatasRevol]

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.

Re:About time

[asylumx]

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.

Re:About time

[NatasRevol]

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

There isn't any practical difference.

Re:About time

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:About time

[Bill_the_Engineer]

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.

Re:About time

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: About time

[chihowa]

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.

hmmmm.

[jafac]

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.

Re:Follow up Headline

[Man On Pink Corner]

"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?"

Re:I say

[mugnyte]

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?