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.'"
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.
"That's nice."
-NSA Press Secretary
"NSA decides it doesn't care what the constitution says and keeps on doing what it wants."
The Generation
I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
In a New York Times article, Snowden reacts, stating:
"“I acted on my belief that the N.S.A.’s mass surveillance programs would not withstand a constitutional challenge, and that the American public deserved a chance to see these issues determined by open courts. Today, a secret program authorized by a secret court was, when exposed to the light of day, found to violate Americans’ rights. It is the first of many.”"
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
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.
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.
If not this phase of technology used for National Security, there will be some other. In any case, what level of technology use by the government is safe or allowed? I suspect this issue/case is just one of a myriad of ongoing decisions to balance the use of technology for crime/safety while letting everyone (at least) feel like their privacy is respected.
[it doesn't take much to envision a stability to just-appearing technology so that they become applicable in many potentially intrusive ways...drones hovering above public places using instant facial recognition to identify any person-of-interest, without need to publish why interest arose...infra-red cameras on streetlights to track who is in each home and when...ubiquitous vehicle-tracking, engine-disabling technology to capture any suspect in a vehicle...100% person-presence tracking]
The technology is going to be everywhere, and it's understanding by the general populace is shrinking. The technocrats will provide the tools for the aristocrats and both will try to balance between appeasement and revolution by the rest of society. Choosing to avoid technology now will only handicap you. Some as-yet-unknown sci-fi authors will be heralded as prophets.
You mean like DUI checkpoints?
Driving is not a constitutionally protected right. Most states issue drivers licenses as granting the driver the privilege of being allowed to drive on public (i.e., government built and owned) roads. If you don't like the terms, you are free to not accept them but then you also may not use the state's roads.
DUI checkpoints have only been ruled unconstitutional when it was shown that cars being stopped were driven by members of identifiable ethnic groups. The stop itself was not unconstitutional but the uneven application of who got stopped violated "equal protection under the law."
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
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?
His verdict applies tothe entire country. His 'limited jurisdiction' only applies to the types of cases he can take, not to a specific region.
"In general, federal courts may decide cases that involve the United States government, the United States Constitution or federal laws, or controversies between states or between the United States and foreign governments. A case that raises such a "federal question" may be filed in federal court."
http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/UnderstandingtheFederalCourts/Jurisdiction.aspx
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
"If you don't like the terms, you are free to not accept them but then you also may not use the state's roads."
Drink the Kool-Aid much? The "state's roads" are part of the commons. They belong to everyone. The illusion that the state has to somehow grant me the privilege of being on public property is an outrageous fabrication. (Hint: Where is the public land where it's not a "privilege" to be there, in your estimation? Oh right, there isn't any...)
Read the judge's full ruling.
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.
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".