5 ms·

Didn't the NSA delay sunsetting the program for a few months (because it was a legal option given to them by the court)? Convenient that this injunction occurr

Didn't the NSA delay sunsetting the program for a few months (because it was a legal option given to them by the court)? Convenient that this injunction occurred before the sunset date. Once again disappointed to see the court side against the 4th Amendment. Edit: and this is rather unfortunate... 'It is entirely possible that, even if plaintiffs are granted discovery, the government may refuse to provide information (if any exists) that would further plaintiffs’ case. Plaintiffs’ claims may well founder in that event. But such is the nature of the government’s privileged control over certain classes of information. Plaintiffs must realize that secrecy is yet another form of regulation, prescribing not “what the citizen may do” but instead "what the citizen may know."' Edit 2: nevermind that the entire states secret clause that the courts are so often to back up is based on the government trying to save face and not admit wrong-doing.

ksherlock 11y ago
The district court opined that the bulk collection was not authorized by law, so the NSA was acting illegally (but ignored whether it was constitutional or not). The FISA court ignored that and said they still have 180 days to bulk collect, per the so-called 6/2/2015 Freedom Act.
YoureWrong 11y ago
> 'It is entirely possible that, even if plaintiffs are granted discovery, the government may refuse to provide information (if any exists) that would further plaintiffs’ case. Plaintiffs’ claims may well founder in that event. But such is the nature of the government’s privileged control over certain classes of information. Plaintiffs must realize that secrecy is yet another form of regulation, prescribing not “what the citizen may do” but instead "what the citizen may know."' If secrecy is another form of regulation, then any such regulations must be subservient to the fact that a citizen is entitled to due process and to protection against their affects being seized. This means that the government asserting state secret to block the judicial review of a case about them failing to uphold the constitution is a breach of the constitution, and subservient regulations like state secrecy must be set aside to uphold constitutional obligations. Or at least, that's what my lawyer would probably say on appeal.

ksherlock 11y ago

The district court opined that the bulk collection was not authorized by law, so the NSA was acting illegally (but ignored whether it was constitutional or not). The FISA court ignored that and said they still have 180 days to bulk collect, per the so-called 6/2/2015 Freedom Act.

YoureWrong 11y ago

> 'It is entirely possible that, even if plaintiffs are granted discovery, the government may refuse to provide information (if any exists) that would further plaintiffs’ case. Plaintiffs’ claims may well founder in that event. But such is the nature of the government’s privileged control over certain classes of information. Plaintiffs must realize that secrecy is yet another form of regulation, prescribing not “what the citizen may do” but instead "what the citizen may know."' If secrecy is another form of regulation, then any such regulations must be subservient to the fact that a citizen is entitled to due process and to protection against their affects being seized. This means that the government asserting state secret to block the judicial review of a case about them failing to uphold the constitution is a breach of the constitution, and subservient regulations like state secrecy must be set aside to uphold constitutional obligations. Or at least, that's what my lawyer would probably say on appeal.