Slashdot Mirror
NSA's Legal Win Introduces a Lot of Online Insecurity
Nerval's Lobster writes "The decision of a New York judge that the wholesale collection of cell-phone metadata by the National Security Agency is constitutional ties the score between pro- and anti-NSA forces at one victory apiece. The contradictory decisions use similar reasoning and criteria to come to opposite conclusions, leaving both individuals and corporations uncertain of whether their phone calls, online activity or even data stored in the cloud will ultimately be shielded by U.S. laws protecting property, privacy or search and seizure by law-enforcement agencies. On Dec. 27, Judge William H. Pauley threw out a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) that sought to stop the NSA PRISM cell-phone metadata-collection program on the grounds it violated Fourth Amendment provisions protecting individual privacy and limits on search and seizure of personal property by the federal government. Pauley threw out the lawsuit largely due to his conclusion that Fourth Amendment protections do not apply to records held by third parties. That eliminates the criteria for most legal challenges, but throws into question the privacy of any data held by phone companies, cloud providers or external hosting companies – all of which could qualify as unprotected third parties."
The insecurity is on the side of the NSA.
They wouldn't go through such hoops if we didn't have the most powerful freedom tool ever, namely the Internet.
Use it properly and they shall vanish.
If the fourth doesn't apply to records held by third parties... what if your records are in a rented storage unit or a bank safety deposit box? If your property is held by a third party (your money in the bank), do constitutional protections against the government just seizing your money also not apply?
During the cold war, we heard stories about how the Communist governments monitor their citizens.
Now our government is monitoring us in ways that the East Germans would envy.
Here's something useful you can do:
-- Find out how your Congressman and Senators voted on these policies.
-- Add it to their Wikipedia page.
-- Don't vote for them if they don't support the Fourth Amendment.
Even a casual observer can figure out that SCOTUS has been ignoring the Constitution.
Well then, it's a good thing we have "casual observers" to tell us what is and isn't constitutional. Lawyers and judges are clearly overrated. Any opinion is as good as any other.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
i suppose being the girl/boyfriend of a terrorist does make you a valid target.
Being the girl/boyfriend of a NSA Employee does not make you a valid target.
Except that surveillance and monitoring of the judges are FACTS. While your "conspiracy theories" are not.
Such facts do indeed have consequences of the legality and morality of such judges' decisions, REGARDLESS wether such records have been used or not.
Lawyers and judges are clearly overrated. Any opinion is as good as any other.
Everything that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mussolini, and Hitler did to their respective peoples was "legal".
Appeal to authority fails.
The founders placed the ultimate responsibility for determining the constitutionality of laws/acts and other actions/policies of the government in the hands of the people.
The US is in a state of "cold" civil war, with the Federal government on one side, and the people on the other. It hasn't gotten to the point of open warfare...yet. However, given the unconstitutional and authoritarian/fascist path that those in the Federal government seem determined to pursue, a domestic shooting war appears inevitable.
How, you may ask, can one shoot the women and children of government leaders? You just don't lead 'em as much. War is hell.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.