3 ms·

There are many obvious errors in your claims, such as this: > Tempora is not even a US program, so clearly neither can violate the 4th Amendment The NSA is a

There are many obvious errors in your claims, such as this: > Tempora is not even a US program, so clearly neither can violate the 4th Amendment The NSA is a partner in the program (led by the British, with whom the US has a very close intelligence partnership). The program does bulk collection on undersea cables which do carry Americans' data. This is prima facie a violation of the 4th Amendment. > which is why no lawsuits were brought against either program The reason why lawsuits so rarely get anywhere against any of these mass surveillance programs is that in the US legal system, you have to be able to prove standing in order to challenge them. The US isn't like other systems with dedicated constitutional courts that can review laws on their own initiative. Someone has to be able to show that they themselves have been specifically harmed. Unless you can prove that the NSA specifically looked at your data and used it against you in some way, you can't challenge the NSA's surveillance. By the very nature of these programs, it's nearly impossible for anyone to prove that. > The New York Times [2][3] and CNET [4] subsequently correctly described the program The NY Times article you cite describes it as a program that collects information from the largest US tech companies on the basis of FISA requests. Just so you recall, FISA is a court that operates in secret, that grants virtually all requests, and that has demonstrably signed off on Unconstitutional bulk surveillance (e.g., mass collection of call logs). And by the way, the type of behavior we're discussing here, which we know for a fact the US government has engaged in, is exactly what people in this thread are alleging the Russian government might theoretically do to Kaspersky. > High school dropout Snowden Yes, a "high school dropout" who was paid 200 grand a year and given access to the NSA's classified networks. What a dummy! > The program was limited to collecting millions of call logs instead of all call logs after the leaks, and that was considered so obviously constitutional that nobody sued. This is not how the process of challenging an Unconstitutional law works. You can't just say, "That's Unconstitutional" and then sue. You have to show that you have personally been targeted. That's why Rosa Parks had to physically sit down on the bus and wait to get thrown off. That's what gave her standing to challenge Montgomery's segregated bus system. Just knowing that a surveillance program exists and has probably illegally collected your information does not automatically give you the ability to challenge said program in court. Bulk collection of records of millions of Americans (this is just the warrant that we know of, and there were almost certainly similar warrants covering most Americans, because by design, the program was meant to do bulk analysis of all call records) is obviously unconstitutional, but also very difficult to legally challenge.

lern_too_spel 5y ago
> The NSA is a partner in the program The NSA is aware of the program but has no say in implementing it and doesn't have access to its data. Only the UK has the data and gets to choose who to share what they've learned from it to. This is clearly not a violation of the 4th Amendment, which is why nobody has sued the US government for it. If you believe it is a violation, go ahead and try to find a lawyer to take your case. > The reason why lawsuits so rarely get anywhere... No lawsuit was brought at all against XKeyscore or Tempora. That is the reason they didn't get anywhere. Lawsuits were brought against the phone metadata program, which succeeded, and against PRISM, which was thrown out because it didn't collect the data of the person who brought the lawsuit, unlike what Snowden and Greenwald erroneously claimed. > Just so you recall, FISA is a court that operates in secret, that grants virtually all requests, and that has demonstrably signed off on Unconstitutional bulk surveillance Once again, no program the court has signed off on has been ruled unconstitutional. Just so you recall, FISA is not a court but a law. FISC is the court that rules on FISA requests. > And by the way, the type of behavior we're discussing here, which we know for a fact the US government has engaged in, is exactly what people in this thread are alleging the Russian government might theoretically do to Kaspersky. The behavior we're alleging the Russian government could do with Kaspersky is putting malware in its software. We know the US government has done this for hardware exported overseas, which is why we are right to expect Russia to do this. We also know that Russia engages in dragnet domestic surveillance, which is something you're alleging that the US does, but there is no evidence of. > Yes, a "high school dropout" who was paid 200 grand a year and given access to the NSA's classified networks. What a dummy! He was a Sharepoint admin earning $122k. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/06/11/did-snowden-really-earn-a-200000-salary/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/06/.... His hilarious misinterpretation of PRISM and other programs proves what a dummy he is. The fact that he dropped out of high school just explains how he came to be so stupid, and it should have been a signal for you to read the documents he leaked instead of expecting him to interpret them correctly for you. > Bulk collection of records of millions of Americans (this is just the warrant that we know of, and there were almost certainly similar warrants covering most Americans, because by design, the program was meant to do bulk analysis of all call records) is obviously unconstitutional, but also very difficult to legally challenge. They just have to have reason to believe their data is being collected to challenge it, as they did in Klayman v. Obama I. The conclusion was that the bulk collection of everybody's call records wasn't justified by the law, with no ruling on the constitutionality, possibly because there was precedent in Smith v. Maryland that it is constitutional (the very opposite of "obviously unconstitutional"). After that, Congress passed a law that allowed collection of millions of call records, and that was not even challenged.

lern_too_spel 5y ago

> The NSA is a partner in the program The NSA is aware of the program but has no say in implementing it and doesn't have access to its data. Only the UK has the data and gets to choose who to share what they've learned from it to. This is clearly not a violation of the 4th Amendment, which is why nobody has sued the US government for it. If you believe it is a violation, go ahead and try to find a lawyer to take your case. > The reason why lawsuits so rarely get anywhere... No lawsuit was brought at all against XKeyscore or Tempora. That is the reason they didn't get anywhere. Lawsuits were brought against the phone metadata program, which succeeded, and against PRISM, which was thrown out because it didn't collect the data of the person who brought the lawsuit, unlike what Snowden and Greenwald erroneously claimed. > Just so you recall, FISA is a court that operates in secret, that grants virtually all requests, and that has demonstrably signed off on Unconstitutional bulk surveillance Once again, no program the court has signed off on has been ruled unconstitutional. Just so you recall, FISA is not a court but a law. FISC is the court that rules on FISA requests. > And by the way, the type of behavior we're discussing here, which we know for a fact the US government has engaged in, is exactly what people in this thread are alleging the Russian government might theoretically do to Kaspersky. The behavior we're alleging the Russian government could do with Kaspersky is putting malware in its software. We know the US government has done this for hardware exported overseas, which is why we are right to expect Russia to do this. We also know that Russia engages in dragnet domestic surveillance, which is something you're alleging that the US does, but there is no evidence of. > Yes, a "high school dropout" who was paid 200 grand a year and given access to the NSA's classified networks. What a dummy! He was a Sharepoint admin earning $122k. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/06/11/did-snowden-really-earn-a-200000-salary/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/06/.... His hilarious misinterpretation of PRISM and other programs proves what a dummy he is. The fact that he dropped out of high school just explains how he came to be so stupid, and it should have been a signal for you to read the documents he leaked instead of expecting him to interpret them correctly for you. > Bulk collection of records of millions of Americans (this is just the warrant that we know of, and there were almost certainly similar warrants covering most Americans, because by design, the program was meant to do bulk analysis of all call records) is obviously unconstitutional, but also very difficult to legally challenge. They just have to have reason to believe their data is being collected to challenge it, as they did in Klayman v. Obama I. The conclusion was that the bulk collection of everybody's call records wasn't justified by the law, with no ruling on the constitutionality, possibly because there was precedent in Smith v. Maryland that it is constitutional (the very opposite of "obviously unconstitutional"). After that, Congress passed a law that allowed collection of millions of call records, and that was not even challenged.