4 ms·
One can only make an educated guess, but I think there are a few possibly easy cases: 1. Documents are leaked that specifically identify one or people whose re
by pdabbadabba 11y ago
One can only make an educated guess, but I think there are a few possibly easy cases:
1. Documents are leaked that specifically identify one or people whose records were illegally collected. Those people probably could sue, I would think.
2. Documents are leaked (or evidence otherwise emerges) that the NSA collected data on virtually all of a particular company's calls. Subscribers to that service would probably have a good case for standing.
Bear in mind, though, that we're only at the preliminary injunction stage. The review at this stage will typically take a pessimistic view of plaintiffs' ability to prevail on issues like this if there is substantial uncertainty.
It's possible they could lose on the injunction, but ultimately win on the merits.
- nitrogen 11y agoWasn't one of the first Snowden documents basically #2 for Verizon?
- pdabbadabba 11y agoI honestly don't know. What document do you have in mind?
- nitrogen 11y agoThe one that requested call metadata from all Verizon (business?) customers.
- disposition2 11y agoCouldn't the government just say whatever documents presented were obtained illegally or are 'state secrets'?
- pdabbadabba 11y agoI'd appreciate for someone else to weigh in here, since this is well outside my area of expertise. But my somewhat informed legal instinct is that the government can invoke certain privileges to protect it from having to disclose certain information, but these privileges would allow it bar information that is already public from use in court.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> Couldn't the government just say whatever documents presented were obtained illegally or are 'state secrets'? State secrets probably -- that privilege is extremely easily abused. Obtained illegally, less so, since illegally obtained evidence isn't generally excluded except when offered by the government in a criminal case; in other cases, the remedy for illegally obtained evidence is just to prosecute for the act of illegally obtaining it.
- makomk 11y ago"1. Documents are leaked that specifically identify one or people whose records were illegally collected. Those people probably could sue, I would think." If I remember correctly, that actually did happen - in fact, the Governemnt accidentally leaked them itself - and the courts ruled that because the person wouldn't have known about it if they hadn't accidentally been sent those documents, they still didn't have standing to sue. It's basically impossible to take any kind of legal action against these secret mass surveillance programs in the US.
- pdabbadabba 11y agoThat does not sound right at all. If you happen to be able to find the case, I'd be very interested to read it.
- drjesusphd 11y ago> 2. Documents are leaked (or evidence otherwise emerges) that the NSA collected data on virtually all of a particular company's calls. Subscribers to that service would probably have a good case for stanodding. This already happened in 2007 I believe. AT&T and Verizon phone services were implicated, implying mass violations of the Telecomminications Act of 1998. Congress turned around and have the telecoms retroactive immunity. Because "ignorance of the law is no excuse" only applies to you and me. Companies with millions of dollars worth of lawyers on retainer couldn't possibly have known that it was illegal.