Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Federal Court Overturns Ruling That NSA Metadata Collection Was Illegal

Posted by Soulskill on from the two-steps-forward,-one-step-back dept.

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?

7 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. No proof, no proof by phorm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:No proof, no proof by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  2. It should be noted... by sycodon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...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.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  3. Fucking cowardly judiciary by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Interesting

    " 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.

    1. Re:Fucking cowardly judiciary by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 5, Informative

      " 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.

      They are not cowards. They are vile, complicit scumbags who want things to be this way.

      --
      Similar to the upcoming US election results
  4. Re:You Can't prove Nothing by QRDeNameland · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is that since it is a secret gov't program, no one can actually prove they have standing. In other words, it is legally unassailable by design.

    --
    Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
  5. This is not new- same thing happened in 2007 by XXongo · · Score: 5, Informative

    In "American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency" (2007), the United States Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the suit against the NSA, because they could not present evidence that they were the targets of the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...