13 ms·
This is the "It is illegal to inform the citizen base that the government has removed their constitutional right" lawsuit. The NSA and FBI removed every US cit
by HashThis 7y ago
This is the "It is illegal to inform the citizen base that the government has removed their constitutional right" lawsuit.
The NSA and FBI removed every US citizen of their constitutional right, to privacy. Edward Snowden informed the US citzen base on their constitutional rights being removed.
This lawsuit is the government saying it is illegal for any US citizen to inform all other citizens when the government removes their constitutational rights.
- r00fus 7y agoIs there a constitutional right to privacy? Where is that enshrined? I say this as someone who values privacy for all.
- whatshisface 7y agoIt's the one about unlawful search and seizure.
- excalibur 7y agoTry the 4th Amendment: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
- bb88 7y agoIf you're an originalist (and I'm not saying that I am), data in transmit is not necessarily protected by that amendment If your data has left your house, is it really your data, or is it Google's say?
- fuzz4lyfe 7y agoWhen you send a letter it does not belong to the post office while in transit. Why are bits on a hard drive any different?
- bb88 7y agoCan you point an originalist to the constitutional clause or amendment that grants such a right?
- Rooster61 7y agoIt probably isn't in the Constitution, but I would not be surprised if there was legal precedent for such a thing.
- bb88 7y agoThat's the problem with an originalist, settled law isn't necessarily settled. Previous court decisions may have been decided incorrectly.
- homonculus1 7y agoNo clause or amendment grants any right. Rights are explicitly innate to the individual and not granted by or limited to the constitution.
- bb88 7y agoAn originalist would point out that the constitution does not grant rights, but merely limits the laws and actions that government can take. Despite what the constitution says, human rights are not self evident, they must in fact be legalized.
- MereInterest 7y agoThis hypothetical originalist would have an interesting time dealing with the ninth amendment, which explicitly states that the Bill of Rights is not a full listing of all human rights. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
- txcwpalpha 7y ago
- bryanrasmussen 7y agoIsn't that data one of your effects?
- garmaine 7y agoThat wasn't the only program. They were also tapping into cell phones and laptop webcams for remote surveillance on targeted subjects, but without any constitutionally required warrant checks in place.
- bb88 7y agoBut was it illegal? And how would you know that such a warrant didn't actually exist in a court, particularly the FISA court? It's possible that with FISA, everything under the so called warrantless wiretap program might be legal -- you just don't have access to prove it is.
- garmaine 7y agoHave you been paying attention? At the time that Snowden made his revelations, no approval was necessary for an NSA analyst to activate a webcam, for example. They literally just had to select from a menu of totally broad reasons on an internal web form documenting the access. They had a congressionally granted exemption from requiring case-by-case FISA approval. This is now all open and acknowledged, and found to be illegal.
- bb88 7y agoLast I checked, the courts made the final decision on what's legal and what's not. I haven't seen the 9-0 Supreme Court decision that says that warrantless wiretapping is illegal. Maybe you can point it out to me? The point isn't that I disagree with you on what should be legal or illegal, I very much agree with you. The point is, unless something enters a court of law for ajudication, it's very much in the land of the political. And there's a lot of darkness surrounding the FISA court, much of which cannot be challenged. Is it legal? It looks like the courts say it is.
- garmaine 7y agoIt was tested in court and found to be illegal: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-nsa/nsas-phone-spying-program-ruled-illegal-by-appeals-court-idUSKBN0NS1IN20150507 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-nsa/nsas-pho...
- behringer 7y agoEdward Snowden showed us that the NSA can and does access our webcams remotely. So they are watching you even when you don't know your data is leaving your house.
- lern_too_spel 7y agoWhere "our webcams" are the webcams of non-US citizens outside the US who are of interest to national security.
- behringer 7y agoWrong. That's the entire point Snowden was making. That they are engaged in illegal domestic surveillance.
- lern_too_spel 7y agoThe only illegal domestic surveillance program Snowden leaked was phone metadata collection. Where did any of his leaks say that the NSA would hack domestic webcams at will?
- deogeo 7y agoIf I entrust data to Google, or my possessions to the safe of a bank, I am still injured when that trust is broken. I gave conditional access to one entity, not to everyone, and not to the government.
- Rooster61 7y agoNot trying to plug Andrew Yang here, but this is a big part of his platform. He's advocating for a right-to-data bill that would make any and all data collected and transmitted yours. If that goes into place, your data immediately becomes subject to these amendments. It does away with some of the legal grey area that surrounds data.
- nostrademons 7y agoCurious how this handles data that is not specifically about one person, but is about the relationships between many people? Facebook's social graph, for instance: is the fact that I am friends with someone on Facebook my property, their property, or Facebook's property? Or this conversation we're having on HN: you could argue that we each own our words, but the conversation itself (including contextual replies, quoted text, arguments responded to, etc.) is its own entity that doesn't make sense when individual posts are removed, and that's why HN has a time limit for deleting your posts. What about a crowd shot that has various other people in the background? Is it property of the photographer, the clearly-visible foreground subjects, or anyone who happens to appear in it? Does that mean someone who goes around tourist attractions photobombing people has a right to claim all your family photos?
- Rooster61 7y agoI haven't seen what would actually be in the bill, and I am curious as well. Hence one of the reasons I prefaced by saying I'm not plugging him :) Questions like these also partly explain why legislators are so reluctant to create law for such things.
- 317070 7y agoIt is the basic premise for GDPR in the EU. While convoluted (it did not end up that bad, or as bad as you'd predict), it actually delivers this idea in a workable way.
- colejohnson66 7y agoRe: originalists: The framers couldn’t’ve imagined the internet, and, despite that, what you say on the internet is protected by the first amendment as it is speech. Why would the fourth amendment be any different?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Rooster61 7y agoBecause the first and fourth amendments guarantee different rights. The first guarantees that you essentially can't be arrested for speech. It says nothing about whether or not your speech can be collected and recorded. The fourth forbids the government with searching the enumerated items without cause or a warrant. Very different things.
- colejohnson66 7y agoMy point was that the “originalist” view of the constitution falls apart when you see that the Supreme Court has ruled that speech that the framers couldn’t even imagine is protected. They've done the same with the fourth (you can’t search a car without a warrant or probable cause even if it’s in public... to an extent). I was arguing that if you want to take an originalist view to the constitution, you’d need to give up your protection of speech online and in many other areas.
- AndrewBissell 7y agoAmong others, Neil Gorsuch is one originalist-friendly justice who has strongly argued against this interpretation of the 4th Amendment in a modern data transmission context.
- homonculus1 7y agoIf you're an originalist, spying on everybody is not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government.
- mattkrause 7y agoIs that really true? In 1789, "papers", being made of actual paper, were in transit for much longer in 1789 and there are absolutely draconian laws against destruction and obstruction of the mail. For example, 18 USC § 1702, which prohibits "with design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into the business or secrets of another, or opens, secretes, embezzles, or destroys the same" also doesn't have a carve-out for governmental purposes.
- bb88 7y agoMail protection need not fall under 4th amendment protections if it's protected by laws passed by congress. Another question would be: would mail be protected without that law and just by the 4th amendment itself?
- SamReidHughes 7y agoIf it’s in an envelope, sure, but not if it’s on a postcard.
- michaelmrose 7y agoI don't think that logic even works from an originalist perspective. If the bank holds a safe deposit box on your behalf it doesn't become the banks property unless you abandon it and searching it is no less legally problematic because its lies within the banks property. One doesn't even have to reach into the realms of tech not imagined at the founders time to find useful analogies. Furthermore the idea that a document written hundreds of years ago can't be reinterpreted in the context of framers intentions and new reality is fundamentally broken. It means you have to rewrite from scratch every century.
- eternalban 7y ago"It’s a question fit for Benjamin Franklin. Prior to the American Revolution, Franklin had been the postmaster for the British Crown, establishing postal delivery routes throughout the colonies. In the early days, it was only official government communications that passed through the post, and it was “sealed against inspection”. Later, when the mail could be used by citizens, carriers would regularly read others’ mail along their long routes for entertainment. Franklin, eager to maintain the sanctity of the mail in a time of political upheaval, developed a set of regulations and affixed locks to postal carriers’ saddle bags. Franklin’s early regulations became part of the basis for privacy law, as did the Fourth Amendment rule about unreasonable searches, which the Framers certainly intended to cover postal mail." source: https://slate.com/technology/2013/06/nsa-surveillance-why-the-post-office-doesnt-spy-on-your-mail-the-way-nsa-spies-on-your-email.html https://slate.com/technology/2013/06/nsa-surveillance-why-th...
- ummwhat 7y agoThe answer is yes it is still your data. There are relevant supreme Court precedents which resolve this unambiguously. Hence why you need a warrant to tap a phone line instead of just claiming "it's the phone companies signal".
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deogeo 7y agoThe 4th amendment secures people against unreasonable searches.
- noobiemcfoob 7y agoIt's one of those amendment thingies.
- randcraw 7y agoYes, the 4th and 14th amendments are most often cited, but others also apply. For more see here... http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightof... https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/is-there-a-right-to-privacy-amendment.html https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/is-th...
- swalsh 7y agoThere are also some people who have tried to make the argument that the 3rd amendment could protect privacy as well.
- nickles 7y agoThe constitution does not explicitly enumerate a right to privacy. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) explicitly established the right to privacy. Justice Douglas’ opinion states that such a right exists within the “penumbras” and “emanations” of the constitution. As there is no explicitly enumerated right, strict constructionists may oppose this interpretation. Katz v. United States (1967) established a two part test to determine whether an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a given circumstance: "first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.'" Smith v. Maryland (1979) established the basis for the government’s claim that the data collection program is permitted. The case focuses on whether an individual has an expectation of privacy for metadata they willingly give up to a third party. The court found that a warrant is not required to collect such information.
- plopz 7y agoThere's an episode of the West Wing that goes into this, "The Short List". One of the characters, Sam Seaborn is questioning a nominee of the supreme court about his position on privacy. It's classic Aaron Sorkin writing, but it might address your question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaEBXmeaXbI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaEBXmeaXbI
- excalibur 7y agoExactly. Where is the accountability for the government officials who deprived us of our rights in the first place? There's been none. They made a few perfunctory gestures toward self-control, and kept right on violating the Constitution in the same ways under programs with new names.
- OrgNet 7y agoThe problem with the Government is that the people in power feel like they have all the power and don't want to let it go. I think that robots would serve us better.
- Rapzid 7y agoWell we got close untill the heads of the intelligence agencies lied to Congress.. Drat, I guess they were too slippery for us this time!
- bb88 7y agoRightly or wrongly, that is not a part of the SF86 form when one applies for a clearance. The SF86 form offers no leeway for moral objections. So in such a scenario, it would be better to not submit the SF86 form in the first place. The only people I'm aware of that can publish classified information without punishment are journalists.
- omarhaneef 7y agoI see the same issue with the other debate raging on HN: Stallman and Free Speech. The issue is that people -- not sure whether it was OP, or you -- conflate what is moral with what is legal. One person starts off with a moral premise: people should have free speech, or people should have the right to say what the government is doing. Someone else responds with what is legal: the law applies to government curtailment of free speech, or there was a contract in place. Laws should reflect values, not vice-versa. What is legal should not be confused with what is right. Note: I am not taking a moral position myself here. I just wish the legal position would not short-circuit the debate about what the correct moral position ought to be.
- indigochill 7y agoI agree with your observation and statement, but also want to add there is a moral argument that if one objects to a law or a contract, one should remove oneself from under it (leave the country/company) rather than break it, even if the law itself is immoral. Not that I'm arguing one way or another how that applies in this situation, though.
- TheCoelacanth 7y agoSnowden did leave both the company and the country, though.
- chrisdhoover 7y agoThere the concept of civil disobedience. You don't simply leave a country because you disagree with it, you change it. Refer to the King and the civil rights movement for more. Go further back to the other Martin Luther for even more.
- geggam 7y agoGiven the fact the constitution binds the govt and details what rights the govt has I am not sure how the govt has a leg to stand on.
- colejohnson66 7y agoBecause, AFAIK, there’s nothing binding the government from enacting a law against treason or espionage. So they did a century ago. The problem is not that (depending on who you ask). The problem is that they’re abusing “national security” to justify needing secret courts and claiming a legally protected action (whistleblowing[0]) is illegal. [0]: Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act
- geggam 7y agoThere are fundamental rules in the bill of rights the govt has passed laws to circumvent. Those laws are fundamentally illegal
- colejohnson66 7y agoSuch as?
- MereInterest 7y ago"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Any law that allows the NSA carte blanche to observe my communication is a law authorizing unreasonable search and seizure, and is therefore unconstitutional.
- tssva 7y agoI'm not aware of any law that gives the NSA carte blanche to observe my communications. Can you site the specific law?
- koolba 7y agoThat does not make it less illegal. It just makes it a perfect candidate for jury nullification! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
- beardog 7y agoand now neither you nor anyone else who reads this comment are able to properly serve on the jury
- kchamplewski 7y agoI'd be curious to see an explanation of why just knowing about jury nullification would disqualify you from being on a jury - obviously if you intend to nullify or "helpfully" inform the other jurors about nullification you should disclose it and therefore be disqualified, but I do not see how knowledge of nullification counts as something that should disqualify you if you have no intention of nullifying.
- beardog 7y agoI didn't say it would legally disqualify you, just that it would prevent you from doing jury duty properly.
- kchamplewski 7y agoIn what way though? Knowing that I could nullify does not in any way prevent me from properly concluding a verdict based on the laws that are in place. It's only if I choose to actually nullify that I'm not doing jury duty properly, but the knowledge of nullification as far as I can understand in no way prevents me from doing jury duty properly.
- koolba 7y agoThere’s generally very loose discretion to eliminate potential jurors. Often without providing any reason at all. A prosecutor, given the option and knowledge of the situation, would never willingly have a person on the jury that knows they could totally disregard the criminality of the charges at hand.
- mzs 7y agoWhat? No, this is a lawsuit for violations of the NDAs Snowden signed with NSA & CIA in particular regarding not submitting his manuscript for pre-publication review.
- onetimemanytime 7y ago>>This lawsuit is the government saying it is illegal for any US citizen to inform all other citizens when the government removes their constitutational rights. He can do whatever he wants but he has to suffer the consequences. Every state has secrets and employees with top clearances learn them by swearing to keep the secret. He can go to Congress or through the chain of command....or risk jail and financial ruin. Otherwise a CIA ex-chief could write a book and name all US spies in China or Russia...
- jjtheblunt 7y agoWhere is the right to privacy, in the US constitution, spelled out? [ asking because i don't know ]
- decebalus1 7y agoWho said anything about privacy? This is about the 4th amendment.
- austinheap 7y agoWhich court ruled it applies here?
- pier25 7y agoIt's worse than that. What gives the NSA the right to capture private data from other countries?
- namirez 7y agoWell, they claim the citizens of other countries are not protected by the US constitution. Not that I agree with them, but it might be harder to challenge this in courts.
- pier25 7y agoSure, from a legal perspective since I guess it's in a grey area of international law. Morally speaking it's wrong.
- austinheap 7y agoAny country with resources is doing it to allies and adversaries alike and selective outrage requires top-shelf cherry picking. Everything is tapped everywhere.
- lern_too_spel 7y agoThis is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal one. This says the government can take the profit you earn from sharing state secrets.
- dredmorbius 7y ago...it is illegal for any US citizen to inform... Strictly, no. This is not a criminal case, judging guilt for crime; it's a civil contracts case for injunction against profits, per the NDA. And citizens not bound by the NDA, who happen into the information (as would be the case with numerous US-citizen reporters who've written on the Snowden stoy while including specifics of his information disclosures) are not enjoined. At least not in this case. The NDA does make it remarkably difficult for anyone with specific insider knowledge to publish and profit by disclosure. NB: I am a space alien cat, not a lawyer. I'm not defending any position, publication, or contract, or questions of possible criminal prosecution. Just clarifying what is at hand, and what language applies.
- downandout 7y agoThis is the "It is illegal to inform the citizen base that the government has removed their constitutional right" lawsuit. While I applaud what Snowden did, the issue in this case is quite a bit different than what you have portrayed here. The issue is whether or not he violated the terms of his NDA. And of course he did, in a gigantic and very public way, and then admitted it and has given many speeches about doing it, wrote a book about it, and had a movie created portraying it. Sadly, this is an open and shut case. I am not even sure why he would defend it though, as the case is a “Grenada” [1] and a judgment from a US court will have zero effect on him while living in Russia. [1] https://youtu.be/5yhxTyYEF9s?t=24s https://youtu.be/5yhxTyYEF9s?t=24s
- eigenloss 7y agoWhere's the privacy amendment again? Asking for a friend.