7 ms·

> the plaintiff had suffered any harm from the data collection so you have to prove you've suffered harm from the removal of your rights? They're called rights

• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• DannyBee 11y ago
  The possibility they may suffer harm is generally not sufficient to confer standing. It has to actually occur. This is precedent set by the supreme court in http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/clapper-v-amnesty-international-usa/ http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/clapper-v-amnesty... Courts do not decide cases based on speculative future injury. "To establish Article III standing, an injury must be "concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling." "
  • mirimir 11y ago
    Yes, and that's arguably why information from domestic NSA intercepts only gets used when obfuscation through parallel construction is possible.
• dragonwriter 11y ago
  > so you have to prove you've suffered harm from the removal of your rights? No, you have to be able to establish that you have had your rights violated. The standard that gets referred to as "harm" is more formally "concrete, particularized injury" where "injury" is defined as a violation of a legally-protected interest. You don't have to prove, e.g., damages from the violation of your rights, but you can't just allege that an action is a violation of people's rights generally, and further that, as a person, you may have been impacted, so therefore you have standing to challenge the action. To have standing to sue, you have to allege with sufficient evidentiary basis that an action actually violated your rights in a concrete way.
  • beambot 11y ago
    So if rights are violated, but the violations are kept secret (eg. secret court gag order, national security, etc)... then you haven't been legally harmed?
    • NickNameNick 11y ago
      Someone may have been harmed, but Until YOU can prove that YOU have been harmed, YOU don't have standing.
      • ekianjo 11y ago
        Why doesn't this process lead to an investigation whether data was collected or not about the plaintiff?
        • dragonwriter 11y ago
          In civil lawsuits, investigation to gather facts necessary to meet threshold requirements like standing is the responsibility of the plaintiff before filing suit.
          • rancur 11y ago
            subpoena?
• temp12312 11y ago
  Under current fourth amendment law, the data collected is likely to be viewed as verizon business records, not as the "papers" or "effects" of the complainant. If that it is the court's analysis then only verizon would have standing to object to the collection of the records, since only verizon would have a possessory interest in them, and only verizon would be harmed by their illegal search or seizure.