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. "
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,
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.
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.
Currently, I am on the receiving end of what I consider to a nuisance lawsuit. Someone went to the same school years ago as I was working on a graduate degree became upset because I called him an "ass", "fool", and an "embarrassment" when he set up a conference where he invites a speaker who was expressing that society had a runaway problem with witches.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/287...
The complaint is a train wreck, and I made a point of publishing it in several locations. The plaintiff had a fit and has been attempting to have them taken down. Fortunately, these are public documents and he has had limited success in these efforts. The amended complaint was served to me almost a year ago, and it quickly became clear that the plaintiff does not want the case to go to any type of decision, instead he is delaying over and over again (still waiting to hearing on a motion to dismiss submitted 10 months ago).
While I would love to have my day in court so that this mess can finally be put to bed, I do find some comfort while I wait to be able to show others the details of the 'claims' being made against me (and the school, plus a dozen or so other individuals).
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.
Not really. TFA was quite clear that the problem is rampant in CRIMINAL trials, which are guaranteed by the Constitution to be PUBLIC trails. The intent behind that is to make the courts open enough that a citizen can satisfy himself that the trials are fair. It also defies the constitutional right for the defendant to see the evidence against him (ALL of the evidence) and rebut it.
These aren't nit-picks, the secrecy undermines the legitimacy of the entire court system. I find it disturbing that anyone could manage to become a judge and either not understand that or not care.
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."
No Kidding.
Frankly civil trials should also be fully public, it might help curb a lot of the abuses by big business if they knew they couldn't hide behind a "secrecy" agreement