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. "

Comments

United States of America:

[Gravis Zero]

Land of the [Redacted].

This is how it starts

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:And for good reason

[sjames]

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.

Re:More of an issue for litigation that criminalit

[KGIII]

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.