Slashdot Mirror


Surveillance Watchdog Concludes Metadata Program Is Illegal, "Should End"

An anonymous reader writes "Three out of five PCLOB board members are in agreement: The NSA spy programs are illegal.. Unfortunately, these lawyers are not in a position to act or make any changes, only to advise congress and the president. Could this be the start of change to come? 'According to leaked copies of a forthcoming report by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), the government's metadata collection program "lacks a viable legal foundation under Section 215, implicates constitutional concerns under the First and Fourth Amendments, raises serious threats to privacy and civil liberties as a policy matter, and has shown only limited value As a result, the board recommends that the government end the program.'" Not surprisingly, the Obama administration disagrees.

13 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. Duh by LookIntoTheFuture · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Surveillance Watchdog Concludes Metadata Program Is Illegal, "Should End"

    Any rational person with half a brain would come to the same conclusion.

    --
    Brave Sir Robin ran away. ("No!") Bravely ran away away. ("I didn't!")
    1. Re:Duh by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Surveillance Watchdog Concludes Metadata Program Is Illegal, "Should End"

        Any rational person with half a brain would come to the same conclusion.

      Sadly, more people are spending the morning texting each other over last night's arrest of a rich kid with poor self discipline.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Duh by lagomorpha2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Any rational person with half a brain would come to the same conclusion."

      The real question is, how did people like that manage to get onto an oversight board?

    3. Re:Duh by metlin · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's even worse than you know.

      I posted this on another thread, but I quote below:

      The worst travesty to date is the Supreme Court decision in Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project. It was brought to court by the Obama administration and argued by Elena Kagan says that even talking to terrorist groups for "strategies of nonviolence" can be considered advice, which should be considered material support. And they won. So, if you tried to talk a terrorist out of their terrorist acts and move to a path of peace, you would be providing material support. Heck, if you proselytized to a terrorist, you'd be treated the same way. These are executive decisions -- without review, without recourse, which is what makes them worse.

      With draconian laws like this, all you need to do is have a chat on the dietary benefits of celery with a suspected terrorist and you could get be held without charge on the grounds of "national security".

  2. Illegal eh? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So it's illegal. So I guess someone's going to go to prison for the crime then.

    Uh...

    ba-dum-tschhh....?

    It's really sad that the idea of widespread illegalactivities by the government yielding prison sentences for those involved is a joke. But that half ounce of pot you got caught with...

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  3. And nothing will change ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Informative

    Those who run this will continue to say it's legal, and even if it isn't legal, it's Too Important to stop doing it.

    And then they'll just have to find more creative ways to hide that people are being charged on the basis of illegal spying -- why no your honor, this was a routine traffic stop, and his laptop fell open.

    Because, I'm pretty sure I've seen stories about how the spy agencies have been briefing law enforcement in how to cover up the involvement of the three-letter-agencies.

    So, they'll continue to break the law, and then they'll just lie about where the information came from.

    The comparisons to the Stasi get more relevant every day, and many of us are old enough to remember the old "papers please, comrade" jokes.

    Sadly, we're heading there, to the applause of some, and horror of others.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:And nothing will change ... by Bob9113 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because, I'm pretty sure I've seen stories about how the spy agencies have been briefing law enforcement in how to cover up the involvement of the three-letter-agencies.

      Here's one.

      And here's a Wikipedia starting point.

    2. Re:And nothing will change ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Which means sooner or later they will be doing this for people who disagree politically, or who oppose funding increases, or just because they can.

      When your state security can put anybody on the radar of law enforcement and conceal their involvement, then it will be abused, and possibly for personal gain (your ex's new husband needs some closer scrutiny maybe?)

      This just smacks of some of the worst of McCarthyism where lives can be ruined because someone decides it's convenient.

      You don't have a free society when you can be subject to trumped up charges used to mask the real reasons. But increasingly, 'free' is irrelevant under the program of "appearing safe".

      Oh, we see you criticized our agency ... let's see what we can dig up, oooh, says here you're having an affair, that should be enough to discredit you and draw attention away from us.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:And nothing will change ... by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      even if it isn't legal, it's Too Important to stop doing it.

      I am sick and tired of hearing the Government say this. Usefulness is not a valid criterium for arguing the Constitutionality of a law!

      Even the board's statement (quoted in the summary" that the spying "has shown only limited value" is a non-sequitur and should not have been mentioned because doing so lends credibility to the false premise that usefulness is relevant.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:And nothing will change ... by virtigex · · Score: 5, Informative

      Police lying about how they obtained evidence (because they obtained it illegally) is called "parallel construction". Amazingly, US law enforcement treat it as just another tool they can use, rather than a method for committing perjury and circumventing the Fourth Amendment. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

  4. Man who wouldn't be king's speech by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From a higher level, metadata, who calls whom, and when, would have been used to round up the Founding Fathers. Had they still managed to be successful, they would have forbidden that to government without warrant.

    It's really that damned simple, people.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  5. Re:Probably won't have much affect by SplawnDarts · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While this opinion is in no way binding, it may still be valuable. The courts have not weighed in on the various NSA activities with any finality. One district judge has indicated it's probably constitutional. One has indicated it's not. Public disapproval can still help sway the outcome when this dispute makes its inevitable way to the supreme court.

  6. Shoe falls, White House rejects findings. by Virtucon · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yeah, you already know the response White House, Obama isn't agreeing with the finding.

    Back in 2005 then Senator Obama complained about the Patriot Act, which he's now defending.

    “This is legislation that puts our own Justice Department above the law.If someone wants to know why their own government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document, through the library books that you read, through the phone calls that you made, the emails that you sent, this legislation gives people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law. No judge will hear your plea. No jury will hear your case. This is just plain wrong.Giving law enforcement the tools that they need to investigate suspicious activities is one thing. And it’s the right thing. But doing it without any real oversight seriously jeopardizes the rights of all Americans, and the ideals America stands for.”

    So by his own statements he's jeopardizing the rights and ideals of all Americans.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"