Federal Court Overturns Ruling That NSA Metadata Collection Was Illegal

New submitter captnjohnny1618 writes: NPR is reporting that an appeals court has overturned the decision that found the NSA's bulk data collection to be illegal. "Judges for the District of Columbia court of appeals found that the man who brought the case, conservative lawyer Larry Klayman, could not prove that his particular cellphone records had been swept up in NSA dragnets." The article clarifies that due to the recent passage of new laws governing how metadata is collected, this is of less significance than it would have otherwise been: "If you remember, after a fierce battle, both houses of Congress voted in favor of a law that lets phone companies keep that database, but still allows the government to query it for specific data. The three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia still decided to take on the case, because that new program doesn't begin until 180 days after the date that law was enacted (June 2, 2015.)" On top of that, the injunction from the earlier ruling never actually went into effect. Still, it seems like an important ruling to me: a government agency was willfully and directly violating the rights of the Americans (and international citizens as well) and now it's just going to get shrugged off?

Comments

No proof, no proof

[phorm]

1. Can't prove that you were affected because you can't get the records.
2. Can't get the records because they're either "classified" or they just don't answer FOIA requests
3. Can't get them declassified or revealed because you need to go to court
4. Can't go to court because you don't have evidence you were affected.
5. GOTO 1

Re:No proof, no proof

[TheCarp]

Should be an interesting test of the Supreme court. As I understand the Roe V Wade decision had some pretty similar arguments. A lot of it came down to an issue of standing and it was determined that, while by normal standings rules, a person denied an abortion would not have standing to bring a case until injured, but if a pregnancy was life threatening, that would be an effective denial of right to sue.

This seems very little different to me....it is effectively a denial of right to redress of grievance if a person must prove standing in order to grieve while simultaneously needing to grieve in order to prove standing.

Not much different, seems to me they have to rule on the side of standings. I don't see why the government itself should be considered as an entity which cannot be compelled to self incriminate, it is not a person; and it is the entity which all such rights are intended to protect against the abuses of.

I would say a guilty government has a DUTY to self incriminate.

It should be noted...

[sycodon]

...that Obama can stop this with a simple phone call. And he can make sure it doesn't happen again with a stroke of his E.O. Pen.

Fucking cowardly judiciary

[DoofusOfDeath]

" could not prove that his particular cellphone records had been swept up in NSA dragnets."

U.S. federal judges, you are fucking cowards with your bullshit deference to executive-branch "privilege". You let the administration use bullshit tactics to pervert justice, and you use that as an excuse to not protect citizens' fundamental, Constitutionally enumerated rights. You demand that citizens prove that which cannot be proven without committing a crime, but let the administration just bleat "executive privilege" or "state secrets" or "it's for the kids", and consider that doing your job.

Assholes.

Legal Standing

[DarkOx]

Another standing based evasion of the 4th amendment. As long has you have to prove a negative you have personally been the victim of a clandestine program or any government program for that matter the Constitution might as well be toilette paper.

All they have to do is classify the records and its essentially game over.

What we need to do is push for legislation that lowers the bar for legal standing in cases against the government. It should be very low. Once the program is proven to exist it should be open to challenge on the complain it violates any other laws or violates anyone's Constitutional rights. The fact that its supposed to be a government by the people and for the people, means that we the people should have automatic standing anytime the government is violated laws or the Constitution we the people enacted. The grounds should be a failure to lawfully govern, the harm being undermining societies faith in law.

This is the only way we are going make any headway.

Re:You Can't prove Nothing

[dcollins117]

So I guess it's open season for murder, then.

I recently learned that necrophilic acts are not illegal in Massachusetts. So if you murder someone there is no downside (legally) to molesting the corpse.

Not quite sure what to do with this information, but I thought it was interesting.