Slashdot Mirror
Judge Tosses Wikimedia's Anti-NSA Lawsuit Because Wikipedia Isn't Big Enough (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader writes: A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Wikimedia Foundation, Amnesty International, and others against the NSA and other U.S. intelligence agencies for their surveillance of internet communications. The judge used some odd reasoning in his ruling to absolve the NSA of any constitutional violations. He said that since the plaintiffs couldn't prove that all upstream internet communications were monitored, they didn't have standing to challenge whatever communications were monitored. This is curious, given that tech companies are known to be under gag orders preventing them from discussing certain types of government data collection. The judge also made a strange argument about Wikipedia's size: "For one thing, plaintiffs insist that Wikipedia's over one trillion annual Internet communications is significant in volume. But plaintiffs provide no context for assessing the significance of this figure. One trillion is plainly a large number, but size is always relative. For example, one trillion dollars are of enormous value, whereas one trillion grains of sand are but a small patch of beach."
Really? Sounds like this judge had his/her verdict in mind before anyone stepped into the courtroom.
. . . so the judge gets delivered a National Security Letter. The first thing, that is very clearly stated in the letter, is that he is not allowed to talk about the National Security Letter. Then the letter instructs him how to rule on the case.
All, legal, no problem . . .
. . . or . . . ?
What if you received a National Security Letter instructing you to kill somebody . . . what would you do . . . ?
Does the US government issue issue letters like this? Who knows? There is no oversight from anyone on what these letters require you to do. Maybe Snowden knows . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
I don't think the NSA can just hand a judge a NSL. I suspect they went with the monkey wrench approach or the black mail approach.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
You say that, but would you really? I mean, I say I'd take a bullet for a nun but I've yet to face that so I can only hope I'd not chicken out and piss myself if it happens. In fact, I was in a single firefight while enlisted and I was scared shitless (suppressive fire only). I was all gung-ho about it before hand. When the situation happened, I'd have run the fuck away had it not been for the fact that the job needed doing and my brethren's lives were at stake. (If you think the enlisted fight for you, you are mistaken. But, I digress.)
So, would you? I know you think you would. I know you can claim you would. I know I say the same. But, would I? I'd like to think I would. Hell, I've got a few bucks - I can fight the case. But, would I? I dunno, really. I'd like to think so, but maybe not. I've also got a lot to lose and, to be honest, I don't really like you that much. (Not you personally, but you get the idea.)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
But that is sort of the point. The prosecution failed to provide enough evidence of their case before the judge. That's their job, and they didn't provide enough facts for him to make a (correct) ruling. Not the judge's fault that they failed to provide a reference of how much their traffic is.