Slashdot Mirror
Are US Courts 'Going Dark'? (justsecurity.org)
An anonymous reader writes: Judge Stephen Wm. Smith argues that questions about the government's "golden age of surveillance" miss an equally significant trend: that the U.S. Courts are "going dark". In a new editorial, he writes that "Before the digital age, executed search warrants were routinely placed on the court docket available for public inspection," but after the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, more than 30,000 secret court surveillance orders were given just in 2006. He predicts that today's figure is more than double, "And those figures do not include surveillance orders obtained by state and local authorities, who handle more than 15 times the number of felony investigations that the feds do. Based on that ratio, the annual rate of secret surveillance orders by federal and state courts combined could easily exceed half a million."
Judge Smith also cites an increase in cases -- even civil cases -- that are completely sealed, but also an increase in "private arbitration" and other ways of resolving disputes which are shielded from the public eye. "Employers, Internet service providers, and consumer lenders have led a mass exodus from the court system. By the click of a mouse or tick of a box, the American public is constantly inveigled to divert the enforcement of its legal rights to venues closed off from public scrutiny. Justice is becoming privatized, like so many other formerly public goods turned over to invisible hands -- electricity, water, education, prisons, highways, the military."
The judge's conclusion? "Over the last 40 years, secrecy in all aspects of the judicial process has risen to literally unprecedented levels. "
Judge Smith also cites an increase in cases -- even civil cases -- that are completely sealed, but also an increase in "private arbitration" and other ways of resolving disputes which are shielded from the public eye. "Employers, Internet service providers, and consumer lenders have led a mass exodus from the court system. By the click of a mouse or tick of a box, the American public is constantly inveigled to divert the enforcement of its legal rights to venues closed off from public scrutiny. Justice is becoming privatized, like so many other formerly public goods turned over to invisible hands -- electricity, water, education, prisons, highways, the military."
The judge's conclusion? "Over the last 40 years, secrecy in all aspects of the judicial process has risen to literally unprecedented levels. "
Most private citizens want their legal proceedings private. After all, we've already seen what "a matter of public record" leads to: mugshot websites, voter harassment, and your collected information available to the highest bidder.
Land of the [Redacted].
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Previously, the amount of information gleamable was limited by the need to have physical access to the court. Someone would have to go down to the courthouse, hall of records, or similar location, and physically look at things. Now, one button and the entire country is searchable.
Unfortunately, this ease of information access removes the grey area of "public, but requires time/effort to get and is not easily accessible," and as a result, it's a lot more black and white. The parallels with massive aggregation of data, Hack Once Break Everywhere security issues, and even physical access to an iPhone by the FBI being sufficient or insufficient to overcome local security options, are all similar technological areas where a dichotomy is coming into play.
I can't say I think this is a good thing. Grey areas are good. Humans are grey, and technical models of human society should have grey considerations as well.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
It seems to me that the U.S. government is moving rapidly toward greater and greater corruption.
learned a new word today. /. is more like Reader's Digest everyday.
Absolutely no video or audio recording of any court cases, under any circumstances. In addition, in criminal cases the accused is not named publicly unless the want to be. That way, there is no guilty if the court of public opinion.
This is more of an issue (in some ways) for litigation. Criminal information will be public for a long time yet; there is too much interest in being able to run background checks. It would be great if we had better laws allowing records to be expunged after a certain number of years, but too many upper-middle-class people have so little exposure to law enforcement (or have such limited time) that they use "has an arrest record" as a proxy for "will be a bad employee/tenant/etc..."
But on the civil side, one of the benefits of most settlements, mediations, and arbitrations is that the result is secret rather than public. The bigger benefit is that it is so much faster than having to go to court, which can take years to resolve issues you should be able to hash out in less than six months.
And then there is the national security and "under seal" stuff, which should probably have a default expiry date for the seal any time something is filed under seal.
Real lawyers write in C++
Its no Wonder that at times the simple act of buying ammunition is so difficult . I would want to take justice up with my own hands in a situation like this
Have gnu, will travel.
Is it any surprise anyone doing business would want to get away from public courts that are often arbitrary and capricious ?
Forget what you think a police state or authoritarian hellhole looks like, secret courts are really it. The justice system is where you're supposed to be able to make your case against charges, where bad laws are struck down, where the truth is revealed, you have a constitutional right to face the evidence, whether it's facts gathered or people, or a video recording, the second that system gets locked behind "National Security", such as many of the laws are where you can't even find out which one you broke because those very laws are secret themselves. If you can't cross examine the evidence and the law, question it in every detail, and do so in a public manner is when you know you're really in a dog and pony show and not a court. These systems set a terrifying precedent, they should've been disbanded and dissolved years ago, allowing them to continue just enables our decent into a totalitarian state, and once that happens, it will be hell to get out of, especially with technology being abused to get us there.
There are greasebag companies now which scour local court electronic documentation systems and publish all the records on their websites which are then indexed by major search engines. The upshot is that *anyone* who has had a case in court - even the most minor small claims court - has all their personal information published online and easily available via search engine, including their name, phone number, and address.
Initially I'm sure its obvious why courts have electronic documentation systems, but those records would only have been accessible by a person who was specifically trying to access them, and knew exactly what court system's records to look at. Now *all* those records from all systems are on Google. The privacy of millions of people who have used their local court system for any reason - even the most minor disputes - have not lost their privacy and essentially been doxed by these greasebag companies which are doing this and claiming its a crusade for transparency and freedom.
Sealing legal proceedings before a public court is an outrage in a democracy; the application of government force must remain open in a democracy.
For people to resolve their disputes by private arbitration, however, is fine; that's a private choice and no government force is involved; therefore, there is no justification or need to have such resolutions be public.
We all know that only terrorists and commies wanna see what's goin' on deep in the hallowed halls of our sacred legal system!!
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
graduating from schools was going to play out. As college costs crept up and profit motive took over the schools were cranking out law graduates because it's dirt cheap to make a lawyer compared to a doctor. Pretty soon we were going to have far more trained lawyers than we needed. Think of it: millions of young, well trained law school grads with $80k+ in debt and no job prospects whatsoever. They were bound to go after corporate America in a massive frenzy of class action lawsuits.
The solution: Arbitration. Congress past a law which the SCOTUS upheld (they kinda had to, the law is pretty clear and there's nothing in the constitution to bar it). We're all forced to sign away our rights in exchange for employment and essential services. But that hasn't solved the problem of too many lawyers. I wonder what the next stop on their whirlwind tour of fun will be.
I'm guessing they'll turn on the public at large. A buddy of mine got caught without car insurance and got in a wreck (he was paying his premiums with money orders and one of the drones at the payment processing center stole his last money order. Being already a high risk driver his insurance company took that opportunity to cancel his plan without notice). Ten years ago it would have been a loss to the insurance company. Now? A lawyer sued, one a default judgement and my buddy's screwed for the next 20-30 years. But they'll run out of easy targets like my poor shlob of a friend soon. It's gonna get real nasty real fast.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Your reasoning for the criminal cases is basically the idea behind the EU right to be forgotten. I know it's not a popular view but I can see the logic behind it. If you've done something and served your time, why does everybody and their dog need to know that you've left prison? With that sort of system, any offender is almost enforced into a life of crime...
I was wondering how the increase in lawyers graduating from schools was going to play out. As college costs crept up and profit motive took over the schools were cranking out law graduates because it's dirt cheap to make a lawyer compared to a doctor. Pretty soon we were going to have far more trained lawyers than we needed. Think of it: millions of young, well trained law school grads with $80k+ in debt and no job prospects whatsoever. They were bound to go after corporate America in a massive frenzy of class action lawsuits.
And yet, with all the lawyers in the country that are under-utilized, we see nothing comparable to the "open source" movement.
Engineers get together and create massive public value in works such as Mozilla, Apache, and LibreOffice. Lesser projects abound, free for use by anyone.
With all the abuse we take from the government and the expense of taking something to court, you would think that some of these lawyers with spare time on their hands would take an interesting case and litigate it for cost. Not the $450/hr they charge, but just the court fees.
The could build a portfolio of experience and reputation, something that would attract paying customers and perhaps donations from benefactors.
I read about one (count them - one!) lawyer who set up a house with grow lamps, trying to catch the cops using thermal cameras with no probable cause.
One lawyer did one smart setup in ten years or so.
If the cops knew that there might be lawyer stings, but didn't know where they were or what they might be, there'd be a *lot* less abuse.
tom brady is innocent
No its not, the arbitration is forced. It's not that they have a dispute and agree to binding arbitration to settle it. A monopoly, cartel, or position of control is used to force a contract on the individual that forces them into binding arbitration on the most favorable terms to the company.
The effect is to prevent cases being tested in court based on laws, and instead tests them in arbitration based on contract terms. Stripping away the portion of laws that apply to that transaction.
One thing that Snowden taught us is that government "secrets" can be exposed. They will be, in due time. The problem is that it will always be after the fact.
do.
The problem is information asymmetry. Rather than trying to put the genie back in the bottle of ubiquitous privacy, instead we need to shine light (via legal or extralegal methods) into the darkest recesses of public servants, ceos, silver spoons, and politicians private lives. Once nobody has anything to hide (because it is all out in the open) we will be in a better position to judge both laws and people on their merits rather than the weasel-worded ideals projected to us. Because let's face it, the good has been outweighed by the bad in more than 90 percent of law changes in the past 100 years, outside laws explicitly enshrining persecution based on race, gender, sexual preference, etc.
Years ago, the government sought to keep sources and methods classified so they could keep using them. OK, maybe that made sense.
But now, it’s routine for the government to deem evidence secret, or want secret access to someone’s data. We allowed private companies to gather information on everything we do, and now the government wants access to that information, ant secret access no less.
What have they got to fear? If the government is going to investigate me for software piracy and they want my ISP’s records, where is the harm in my being made aware of that? Shouldn’t I be able to plan for my defense?
Just as we’ve trained the police to view the citizen not as part of the community, but as the enemy, the government has taken secrecy tactics should only apply to terrorist suspects under active surveillance and used them against the populace at large.
For the privatized portions, require reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) access in a manner identical to public records.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Without any need for due process or impartiality, they walk all over people.
If that's what you want, you're probably involved in that industry.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Look at the big picture. Examine what has happened to the USA over the last 40 years. Watch Requiem for the American Dream on Netflix. You will begin to realize that what has happened over this time is that the most wealthy have been stealing back the power we wrested from them over the last century. They are stealing back wealth from the middle class. They are stealing back influence over the government, the state. They are corrupting our academics. They are stealing and corrupting our culture. Call it corporate control. Name it with whatever buzzwords you want. But remember what it really is: the most wealthy are seeking total domination over the rest of us. And judging by much of the discourse on discussions like this, they have achieved some success.
I suppose we can be consoled in that the middle class was able to wrest power from the most wealthy in the first place. We are many, and they are necessarily few. We must learn to be strong again. We must learn to free our minds, to educate ourselves about history, politics, and philosophy. Above all we must fight the pervasive cynicism that so weakens us. Cynicism is for the weak.
Arbitration should be banned completely as it is always a rigged deck. All court records should be wide open to the public at all times and conveniently and freely available. Much of the terrors that have come into play are a direct result of the right-wing budget cutting lunatics. For example, we see the VE diesel engine scandal spreading to numerous other car makers since the EPA did not have the funding top test vehicles and allowed companies to test and report how wonderfully clean their exhausts were. Now the defective air bag scandal is exploding and instead of one or two million bad air bags the US alone is looking at ninety million defective and even murderous air bags. Letting the light shine on every conversation and having everyone as well as the government wide open to scrutiny really is our only hope of creating a fair and just society. Right now we have innocent men rotting in prisons with states refusing DNA testing. We have prosecutors who have hidden evidence from the courts. We have prisons with men who are absolutely innocent beyond all doubt and the prisons refuse to release them even when instructed by the courts unless they "confess" to some lesser crime. This is done to keep innocent men from filing law-suits when released. Just how messed up can a system be before the stupid citizens are willing to confront the truth?
The internet is not your friend.
The internet is not your children's friend.
The internet is not your grandchildren's friend.
The internet is not your great grandchildren's friend.
The internet is not anybody's friend.
Snowden tried that. Now he's labelled a traitor.
Next suggestion?
The problem is information asymmetry. Rather than trying to put the genie back in the bottle of ubiquitous privacy, instead we need to shine light (via legal or extralegal methods) into the darkest recesses of public servants, ceos, silver spoons, and politicians private lives. Once nobody has anything to hide (because it is all out in the open) we will be in a better position to judge both laws and people on their merits rather than the weasel-worded ideals projected to us.
And how does that work exactly, the NSA spies on everybody so everybody spies on the NSA? Any scandalized politician will just retire early from politics and get a cushy job for a lobby interest they pushed, no questions asked. Outing people just swap out the talking heads, the system stays the same. And if you think it's ever coming to some sort of reckoning and scaling back of the surveillance society it's not happening, they'll just carve out some more legal exceptions and make more privacy-invading additions for the rest of us to stop the extralegal ways. You sound like one of those Anonymous hackers with delusions of grandeur, sorry but got zero chance at exposing all the backroom deals. Zero.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
As Rob Ford showed, scandal doesn't even hurt some of these arseholes. Get caught smoking crack, deny, admit, ask for forgiveness, repeat, and the tough on crime right is suddenly forgiving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
the good has been outweighed by the bad in more than 90 percent of law changes in the past 100 years, outside laws explicitly enshrining persecution based on race, gender, sexual preference, etc.
You can't really make sweeping statements like that and be taken seriously without pointing to specific examples. This issue however, of court secrecy and warrantless wiretapping is, however, an indication of the desire by certain elements in the judicial branch of government for political expediency that is in one word, Unconstitutional. No amount of changes in how technology has changed the world or America can really justify having secret "Shadow Courts" that operate without the oversight of the public and the other two branches of government. Period!
I have often worried that, if an element wanted to take over the American government and install a police state, they would do it by leaving plausible deniability that it even happened, so that when anyone tried to argue against unconstitutional actions like this, it would all get swept under the carpet in the court of public opinion and joe six pack and his family would just label anyone making that argument a communist or a terrorist or whatever the Ad-Hominem of the day is, meanwhile the court can do whatever it wants whenever it wants without oversight. This is an example of exactly what should not happen in a free society like America claims to be.
Any offender is free to commit suicide and be done with it. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time all the time.
Though while the judiciary is in a state corresponding to pre-WWI in Europe, other aspects of the U.S. system have progressed to pre-WWII already.
The abysmal education system of the U.S. obviously plays into the hands of a corrosive system: people believe that Germany consisted of evil Nazis who all got killed in and after WWII. They just don't understand that it's very few people who set the course for a political system, and if you let the system run loose, everybody becomes a vessel of evil while doing his sometimes patriotic duty.
I'm kind of partial to the courts being public by default. It's hard to uphold our end of the social contract, which is to observe and ensure justice is being served, if we're not privy to the proceedings, judgment, and sentencing. It is, after all, our duty to make sure that the justice being done in our name is actually just. Default to public and do what we can to ensure all possible information is public with very few exceptions. Secret courts have, historically, been bad ideas.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
And when they nail you with a felony because a cop was having a bad day and you get railroaded through a secret court order, remember you can always off yourself.
The first steps to a totalitarian dictatorship.
Typically, classified information is declassified after 25 years, except in nine specified instances (agent identity, WMD design, treaty, etc.) where it can be 50 years. And I'm sure there's some corner cases where it's effectively Never - you know, the part where the CIA assassinated JFK, NASA faked the moon landings,.. that kind of stuff.
Once you go dark
You never stop the mudshark
You only have the rights you can afford.
And if you think that 2nd amendment is a right, you're an idiot, it's nothing more than placebo. While people go prancing around with their God, guns and libertarian-ism, they're really getting screwed by people who control the money and their affluenza afflicted children.
"Now he's labelled a traitor."
Betraying the war mongering pigs is an act of heroism.
And anyway, if bandits that torture people for fun (US military leadership) think you are bad, that doesn't mean you are bad. In fact, it probably means that you are a decent human being.
It has gotten to be standard fare that people simply sign away their rights when they sign credit card applications. Most credit card companies put binding arbitration as part of it simply because they can - few other businesses have the clout to get away with it. Then, since they pay the companies that supply the 'judge' that arbitrates the binding arbitration, who do you think the arbitration companies are going to side with most often? You guessed it. The Credit Card Companies. And these decisions cannot be appealed - quite often even if there is evidence of fraud.
Now I'm not going to say all card companies are necessarily dishonest. At least from what I have read, some are much better than others. But as one lawyer told me, schedule Z, which is the law that governs card companies, is an example of Bankers writing laws for Bankers. The only advice I know is to take action to deal with this increased complexity of life. Check out card companies online. See what people and/or experts say are the best companies for rates and customer satisfaction. In some cases, I have found it good to have a bank issued by an in-between, like a Credit Union. Because the Credit Union wants your business, they will change card companies themselves if they get too many customer complaints. But most credit offers should be filed in the trash.
Shoot yourself in the back while escaping.
If the government has nothing to hide then they will allow publication of and open access to due process. It's both a slogan and the truth.
All the secrecy is because they have something to hide.
that's how Obama won the last two elections. When the shenanigans in Florida started ( closed polling places, understaffing, ballots not being delivered) his campaign paid for over 1000 lawyers to shut it all down. It prevented McCain and later Rhomney from stealing the election like Bush jr did.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
As a citizen of Toronto, I'm happy that fat fuckin' donkey is in the ground. He was just another embarrassment to this crumbling, feminized and smug excuse for a world-class city.
Snowden revealed a lot of information about US agencies spying on US citizens. Unfortunately, he also revealed a lot of information about US agencies spying abroad, and I think that made a very bad impression on lots of people.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes