Slashdot Mirror
US Appeals Court Says NSA Phone Surveillance Is Not Authorized By Congress
New submitter IronOxen writes: A panel of three federal judges for the second circuit overturned an earlier ruling. The court has ruled that the bulk collection of telephone metadata is unlawful, in a landmark decision that clears the way for a full legal challenge against the National Security Agency: "'We hold that the text of section 215 cannot bear the weight the government asks us to assign to it, and that it does not authorize the telephone metadata program,' concluded their judgement." That's not exactly saying that such bulk collection is unconscionable or per se unconstitutional, but it's a major step toward respecting privacy as a default.
We have indeed tasked loyal people with a job. You misunderstand that job. The job is to keep us as safe as possible within the restrictions on methods that liberty requires.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
It means that they personally are at fault, rather than that Congress overstepped it's authority.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Just because it's illegal or not authorized doesn't mean that they will stop. They'll simply continue and do their best to keep it hush hush
About as fast as Senator Obama's changed when he was elected president.
The terrorists did less damage to our way of life than this kind of government spying on its own citizens.
maybe now we can pardon Snowden?
Did you drive to work today? I bet you exceeded the speed limit at some point. Or possibly pushed the limits on that yellowish-red light you ran. Have you ever sang a non-public domain song without paying a royalty (including Happy Birthday)? Jaywalked? Failed to register and/or vaccinate your pet? Not changing your address when you move?
Guess what. You're no longer law abiding. He doesn't have to change his attitude since he qualified his statement. If he said "the phone records of citizens are none of the NSA's business" then we can talk about his attitude if he were to be elected.
Except there's no proof that these tools are actually effective, and there are plenty of arguments made by experts that they cannot possibly be effective (too many false positives ties up scarce investigative resources). So I reject your whole premise.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
It didn't stop the Boston bombing, and the government knew the perpetrators, and the same with the attempted attack the other day in Texas. Too much data is just as bad, or worse, than not enough. Hindsight is always 20/20, and in almost every attack we find that the intel was there to stop it, but wasn't acted upon. So, we're just as screwed with it as without it.
Lets see how well did the spy on everyone program work when two "nice" muslim guys from Phoenix, one of which was already being watched for terrorist ties, drove to Dallas and attempted to shoot up the event that offended them. If our government can't stop terrorists they know are terrorists through all the domestic spying why do some think they are safer by having the government spy on them?
I disagree. They are not tasked with keeping us safe; they are tasked with safeguarding our liberties.
.... keeping in mind that what liberty requires in regard to restrictions may be different than what the mob believes.
I would argue that infringing on the privacy of the people to keep them (questionably) safe(r) is just exchanging one loss of liberty for another.
How about we disregard what EVERYONE thinks and go by what the law says. How's that 4th amendment go again?