11 ms·

Supreme Court declines to hear Wikimedia's challenge to NSA mass surveillance

258 points by Amorymeltzer 4y ago

powera 4y ago
Of all the people to be concerned about mass surveillance, I'm not sure why "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" would be the group to have standing here.
- convolvatron 4y ago
  _anyone_ should have standing here
  - ClarityJones 4y ago
    Part of the purpose of standing it to prevent "friendly lawsuits." If _anyone_ can challenge a law simply because they claim to be opposed to the law, then people who support the law could establish favorable precedent by mounting a flawed challenge that's designed to fail. Standing does not _fully_ prevent this. Sometimes a person may want to plead guilty to conduct that is not a crime, or intentionally lose and serve a few years in prison if the state has agreed to not prosecute them on charges that would land them several decades. However, it's a somewhat useful ~"you have to have some skin in the game if you're going to participate in making the rules."
    - convolvatron 4y ago
      if the NSA is illegally surveilling the entire US population, how is it that you say that they have no skin in the game.
      - selectodude 4y ago
        You have to show measurable harm beyond "I don't like it", basically.
        sebzim4500 4y ago
        If courts don't think that being spied upon gives you standing for a lawsuit, doesn't that completely defeat the point of the fourth amendment?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - ClarityJones 4y ago
        So, I skimmed the recent 4th Circuit opinion (copied below). Ultimately the NSA won on the state secrets doctrine. However, as it relates to standing the gist is that Wikimedia only proved that the NSA had the capacity to copy their communications, but the NSA showed they had the technical capacity to perform the operations without copying Wikimedia's communications. I.e. Even though the NSA tapped the backbones, they could filter out what they did and didn't review / copy independently from Wikimedia's communications... Is that true, IDK. I haven't reviewed the evidence. Quote: Both parties have focused their discussion of Wikimedia's standing on the three prongs necessary to establish the Wikimedia Allegation,[32] which were enumerated in the Fourth Circuit's remand order in this case. See Wikimedia Found., 857 F.3d at 210-11. The three prongs are: (A) Wikimedia's communications almost certainly traverse every international Internet backbone 601*601 link connecting the United States with the rest of the world; (B) the NSA conducts Upstream surveillance at one or more points along the Internet backbone; and (C) the NSA, for technical reasons, must be copying and reviewing all the text-based communications that travel across a given Internet backbone link upon which it conducts Upstream surveillance. Together, these three prongs would establish that the NSA has copied and collected some of Wikimedia's communications in the course of the NSA's Upstream surveillance program, thereby providing Wikimedia standing to sue here. The sufficiency of the evidence with respect to each of these prongs is discussed in detail below. The summary judgment record contains specific facts which show no genuine dispute as to the veracity of the first two prongs of the Wikimedia Allegation. With respect to the third prong, however, the summary judgment factual record contains specific facts that establish, without a genuine dispute of material fact, that the NSA, in the course of Upstream surveillance, does not need to be copying any of Wikimedia's communications as a technological necessity. Thus, the summary judgment record does not contain the facts necessary for Wikimedia to establish standing at summary judgment via the Wikimedia Allegation.
- mschuster91 4y ago
  Even data about who is reading what is insanely valuable to three-letter dataminers. Someone who searches for known drug precursor chemicals? Potential next Walter White, put him on automated surveillance to check if he buys stuff. Someone searching for known explosives precursor chemicals? Potential next Islamist or far-right terrorist, flag them. The list goes on and on, and these scenarios are no longer science fiction - once you have the data, it's easy to create such automations. Wikipedia even provides helpful classification with its category system.
  - deelowe 4y ago
    Parallel construction is the thing that worries me the most. One agency picks up on interesting search traffic, another one has a lead from an interview, another has location data from cellphone logs. Then, someone sits down and constructs a case knowing that these details will come to light in a trial and incriminate the suspect. All the while, there were no warrants, no charges, nothing, until all the pieces of the case had already been pulled together. This is not how the system was designed to work.
- colpabar 4y ago
  > The American Civil Liberties Union, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, and the law firm Cooley LLP represented the Wikimedia Foundation in the litigation.
  - ss108 4y ago
    Their counsel is irrelevant to the question of standing.
    - ProAm 4y ago
      I think it does provide a little bit of color to the reasoning. The ACLU is very direct in what they stand for.
      - ss108 4y ago
        Standing here would be about whether Wikimedia or their members is aggrieved or injured, etc. The poster to whom you replied is wondering how the org would meet the legal requirements.
        ProAm 4y ago
        Ahh I misunderstood your comment. That does makes sense.
        ss108 4y ago
        np :)
- bawolff 4y ago
  You could read their legal briefs to find out, but i think the argument is basically by the pigeon hole principle, the NSA could not possibly not have been spying on them because Wikipedia is so large it is impossible to not spy on them when doing mass internet surveilence.
  - sublinear 4y ago
    > permits the government to intercept Americans’ international communications without a warrant, so long as it is targeting individuals located outside the U.S. for foreign intelligence purposes. Section 702 will expire later this year unless it is reauthorized by Congress. It's also important to point out what's actually being challenged. Either section 702 needs to be made a lot more complicated, or they just continue business as usual. Not surprising which path they want to take.
- zapataband1 4y ago
  i'm guessing they don't want their users surveilled
  - __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
    If I ran a platform like theirs I'd also do everything I can to prevent misbehaving governments from targeting my users based on which pages they've viewed.
- jesboat 4y ago
  From TFA: > This government surveillance has had a measurable chilling effect on Wikipedia users, with research documenting a drop in traffic to Wikipedia articles on sensitive topics, following public revelations about the NSA’s mass surveillance in 2013.
- powera 4y ago
  This is ridiculous. I'm getting downvoted for this, despite the various comments demonstrating that they aren't sure why WMF is involved either. My recollection from reading about this way back in 2016 was that it was about communication between WMF employees, not user data. And to have standing, they should be demonstrating harm, not just saying "the technical ability to spy on our communications exists".
  - ff317 4y ago
    It was and is about user traffic, not employees. WMF was at least implied to be one of the specific targets, because NSA had the Wikipedia logo on some slides about this program which were leaked by Snowden. Also, there was research showing the "chilling effect" - controversial articles saw less traffic in the wake of said leaks.
judge2020 4y ago
It's not obvious what Wikimedia is against regarding 702; they say: > Upstream surveillance is conducted under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which permits the government to intercept Americans’ international communications without a warrant, so long as it is targeting individuals located outside the U.S. for foreign intelligence purposes. Section 702 will expire later this year unless it is reauthorized by Congress. > In the course of this surveillance, both U.S. residents and individuals located outside the U.S. are impacted. So is this "they should not target foreign individuals outside the US that are conversing with US individuals[0]", or is this "they should not surveil foreign individuals at all"? 0: (regardless of whether the US individual is outside or inside the US)
- deelowe 4y ago
  Residents of the US are getting caught up in the dragnet, which is not the intent of FISA. And, it's not limited to citizen/non-citizen interactions. Spying on non-US citizens is legal, by spying on citizens should require a warrant.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    it is fascinating to watch the carves out and weird exceptions the Supreme court has granted over the centuries going against completely the original intent of the constitution Citizenship being a factor on if the government can spy on you or not is one of them. The constitution should apply to government actions all government actions, not just those take inside the confines of the geographic regions known as the US, and not just those taken against US Citizens. The reading of "the people" to mean it only applies to Citizens is very novel IMO...
    - jonny_eh 4y ago
      Relevant: https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_the_people_in_the_constitution.pdf https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_...
    - mc32 4y ago
nohuck13 4y ago
"This government surveillance has had a measurable chilling effect on Wikipedia users, with research documenting a drop in traffic to Wikipedia articles on sensitive topics, following public revelations about the NSA’s mass surveillance in 2013." Research: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2769645 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2769645
- bobsoap 4y ago
  ...which, ironically, may constitute a net win, or even a desired effect, in the eyes of the proponents of government surveillance.
  - noodles_nomore 4y ago
    Compliance is the constitutive purpose of surveillance.
  - dotancohen 4y ago
    That is not ironic. It is likely intentional.
fit2rule 4y ago
[dead]
LatteLazy 4y ago
Scotus has refused to hear cases on Mass Surveillance for a long time. It tells you the quality of the court, as this is likely the largest single issue of our time, touching everything from freedom to democracy to criminal law to the role of the judiciary and congress themselves...
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > It tells you the quality of the court, as this is likely the largest single issue of our time, touching everything from freedom to democracy to criminal law to the role of the judiciary and congress themselves... It doesn't really. This is one of those policy areas that the "tech subculture" tends to fixate on, but that doesn't in any way mean it's actually "the largest single issue of our time." It's pretty helpful to be mindful of your own biases and those of your subculture when making claims like that. What issues does the "tech subculture" not really pay attention to that could actually be far more significant?
  - LatteLazy 4y ago
    With the greatest of respect, that's like saying Roe vs Wade was a niche gynaecology case or Miranda rights are just a question of procedural formalities. I am all for getting out of my tech bubble, but mass surveillance is way way beyond just the tech sector. The existence of warrantless wiretapping brings into question whether the courts even have the right to overrule government actions (a power SCOTUS gave itself back in the early days of the republic). They also circumvent key parts of 100 year old criminal law like the exclusionary rule. And that's just the legalise parts. Not to mention freedom, privacy, democracy etc.
    - nceqs3 4y ago
      >The existence of warrantless wiretapping If only FISA required warrants, ohh wait!
      - LatteLazy 4y ago
the_optimist 4y ago
Denied Wikedia Foundation on basis of “state secrets,” upholding a lower court ruling: https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-snubs-wikipedia-bid-challenge-nsa-surveillance-2023-02-21/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-snubs-wikiped... Seems like these justices simply want to wave this away as too complicated, a valuable secret. Well, if it weren’t secret it would be illegal.
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  Absolute horseshit. Surely there are two lawyers somewhere in the entire country who could get a security clearance and argue this out in a closed court. How can we claim to respect the rule of law when "state secrets" are a get-out-of-jail-free card for flagrantly violating the law?
  - Nasrudith 4y ago
    We don't.
Xeoncross 4y ago
More details: https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2023/02/21/u-s-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-wikimedia-foundations-challenge-to-nsa-mass-surveillance/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2023/02/21/u-s-supreme-... Actual legal documents: https://knightcolumbia.org/cases/wikimedia-v-nsa https://knightcolumbia.org/cases/wikimedia-v-nsa
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kevwil 4y ago
<sarcasm> The government refuses to hear arguments against government surveillance of its subjects. Shocking. Next we'll be surprised that Congress won't vote for term limits. </sarcasm>
- tptacek 4y ago
  If people want congressional term limits, they'll vote in representatives that promise to enact them. People don't want those term limits. They want to pick who they elect to congress for their districts, and they don't care what you think, and the Constitution was written to favor them, not you. I'd prefer term limits too, but I don't think I can high-horse it. Given the prevailing sentiment on HN, we should all be glad there's never been a national referendum on NSA surveillance. From local politics experience: people are generally pretty sanguine about surveillance!
  - kryogen1c 4y ago
    > I'd prefer term limits too Fwiw, I used to think this until someone pointed me to a study about how short term limits increase reliance on outside sources like lobbyists. I don't remember the study so I can't link it, but it seems intuitively obvious. Can't become a subject matter expert in 4 years, and for sufficiently complicated jobs you're barely competent by then.
    - dctoedt 4y ago
      My wife has long said, "we have term limits — they're called elections."
      - throwaway675309 4y ago
        Not for Supreme Court justices you don't.
        idlewords 4y ago
        Sure we do; they serve one term.
credit_guy 4y ago
I am not a lawyer, but I think the legal strategy was flawed. You can sue someone based on first principles (the NSA does something that's against the Constitution, and we care about the Constitution just like everyone else), or on personal harm (the NSA does something that reduced our profits). But trying to bundle both is suboptimal, because it allows a skeptical court to shred the weakest of the two arguments, which in this case is the second. And by the way, I find the second complaint quite weak. Can I sue the NSA because I can't properly sleep at night due to my anxiety of being under constant surveillance? Of course I can sue, it's a free country. But should I expect the Supreme Court to hear my case? Most likely not.
- earthling8118 4y ago
  I don't believe that there's any reason to expect them to take any case that is inconvenient. Bullet-proof legal case or not. How is that problem worked around?

258 points by Amorymeltzer 4y ago

Of all the people to be concerned about mass surveillance, I'm not sure why "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" would be the group to have standing here.

convolvatron 4y ago
_anyone_ should have standing here
- ClarityJones 4y ago
  Part of the purpose of standing it to prevent "friendly lawsuits." If _anyone_ can challenge a law simply because they claim to be opposed to the law, then people who support the law could establish favorable precedent by mounting a flawed challenge that's designed to fail. Standing does not _fully_ prevent this. Sometimes a person may want to plead guilty to conduct that is not a crime, or intentionally lose and serve a few years in prison if the state has agreed to not prosecute them on charges that would land them several decades. However, it's a somewhat useful ~"you have to have some skin in the game if you're going to participate in making the rules."
  - convolvatron 4y ago
    if the NSA is illegally surveilling the entire US population, how is it that you say that they have no skin in the game.
    - selectodude 4y ago
      You have to show measurable harm beyond "I don't like it", basically.
      - sebzim4500 4y ago
        If courts don't think that being spied upon gives you standing for a lawsuit, doesn't that completely defeat the point of the fourth amendment?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - ClarityJones 4y ago
      So, I skimmed the recent 4th Circuit opinion (copied below). Ultimately the NSA won on the state secrets doctrine. However, as it relates to standing the gist is that Wikimedia only proved that the NSA had the capacity to copy their communications, but the NSA showed they had the technical capacity to perform the operations without copying Wikimedia's communications. I.e. Even though the NSA tapped the backbones, they could filter out what they did and didn't review / copy independently from Wikimedia's communications... Is that true, IDK. I haven't reviewed the evidence. Quote: Both parties have focused their discussion of Wikimedia's standing on the three prongs necessary to establish the Wikimedia Allegation,[32] which were enumerated in the Fourth Circuit's remand order in this case. See Wikimedia Found., 857 F.3d at 210-11. The three prongs are: (A) Wikimedia's communications almost certainly traverse every international Internet backbone 601*601 link connecting the United States with the rest of the world; (B) the NSA conducts Upstream surveillance at one or more points along the Internet backbone; and (C) the NSA, for technical reasons, must be copying and reviewing all the text-based communications that travel across a given Internet backbone link upon which it conducts Upstream surveillance. Together, these three prongs would establish that the NSA has copied and collected some of Wikimedia's communications in the course of the NSA's Upstream surveillance program, thereby providing Wikimedia standing to sue here. The sufficiency of the evidence with respect to each of these prongs is discussed in detail below. The summary judgment record contains specific facts which show no genuine dispute as to the veracity of the first two prongs of the Wikimedia Allegation. With respect to the third prong, however, the summary judgment factual record contains specific facts that establish, without a genuine dispute of material fact, that the NSA, in the course of Upstream surveillance, does not need to be copying any of Wikimedia's communications as a technological necessity. Thus, the summary judgment record does not contain the facts necessary for Wikimedia to establish standing at summary judgment via the Wikimedia Allegation.
mschuster91 4y ago
Even data about who is reading what is insanely valuable to three-letter dataminers. Someone who searches for known drug precursor chemicals? Potential next Walter White, put him on automated surveillance to check if he buys stuff. Someone searching for known explosives precursor chemicals? Potential next Islamist or far-right terrorist, flag them. The list goes on and on, and these scenarios are no longer science fiction - once you have the data, it's easy to create such automations. Wikipedia even provides helpful classification with its category system.
- deelowe 4y ago
  Parallel construction is the thing that worries me the most. One agency picks up on interesting search traffic, another one has a lead from an interview, another has location data from cellphone logs. Then, someone sits down and constructs a case knowing that these details will come to light in a trial and incriminate the suspect. All the while, there were no warrants, no charges, nothing, until all the pieces of the case had already been pulled together. This is not how the system was designed to work.
colpabar 4y ago
> The American Civil Liberties Union, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, and the law firm Cooley LLP represented the Wikimedia Foundation in the litigation.
- ss108 4y ago
  Their counsel is irrelevant to the question of standing.
  - ProAm 4y ago
    I think it does provide a little bit of color to the reasoning. The ACLU is very direct in what they stand for.
    - ss108 4y ago
      Standing here would be about whether Wikimedia or their members is aggrieved or injured, etc. The poster to whom you replied is wondering how the org would meet the legal requirements.
      - ProAm 4y ago
        Ahh I misunderstood your comment. That does makes sense.
        ss108 4y ago
        np :)
bawolff 4y ago
You could read their legal briefs to find out, but i think the argument is basically by the pigeon hole principle, the NSA could not possibly not have been spying on them because Wikipedia is so large it is impossible to not spy on them when doing mass internet surveilence.
- sublinear 4y ago
  > permits the government to intercept Americans’ international communications without a warrant, so long as it is targeting individuals located outside the U.S. for foreign intelligence purposes. Section 702 will expire later this year unless it is reauthorized by Congress. It's also important to point out what's actually being challenged. Either section 702 needs to be made a lot more complicated, or they just continue business as usual. Not surprising which path they want to take.
zapataband1 4y ago
i'm guessing they don't want their users surveilled
- __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
  If I ran a platform like theirs I'd also do everything I can to prevent misbehaving governments from targeting my users based on which pages they've viewed.
jesboat 4y ago
From TFA: > This government surveillance has had a measurable chilling effect on Wikipedia users, with research documenting a drop in traffic to Wikipedia articles on sensitive topics, following public revelations about the NSA’s mass surveillance in 2013.
powera 4y ago
This is ridiculous. I'm getting downvoted for this, despite the various comments demonstrating that they aren't sure why WMF is involved either. My recollection from reading about this way back in 2016 was that it was about communication between WMF employees, not user data. And to have standing, they should be demonstrating harm, not just saying "the technical ability to spy on our communications exists".
- ff317 4y ago
  It was and is about user traffic, not employees. WMF was at least implied to be one of the specific targets, because NSA had the Wikipedia logo on some slides about this program which were leaked by Snowden. Also, there was research showing the "chilling effect" - controversial articles saw less traffic in the wake of said leaks.

judge2020 4y ago

It's not obvious what Wikimedia is against regarding 702; they say: > Upstream surveillance is conducted under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which permits the government to intercept Americans’ international communications without a warrant, so long as it is targeting individuals located outside the U.S. for foreign intelligence purposes. Section 702 will expire later this year unless it is reauthorized by Congress. > In the course of this surveillance, both U.S. residents and individuals located outside the U.S. are impacted. So is this "they should not target foreign individuals outside the US that are conversing with US individuals[0]", or is this "they should not surveil foreign individuals at all"? 0: (regardless of whether the US individual is outside or inside the US)

deelowe 4y ago
Residents of the US are getting caught up in the dragnet, which is not the intent of FISA. And, it's not limited to citizen/non-citizen interactions. Spying on non-US citizens is legal, by spying on citizens should require a warrant.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  it is fascinating to watch the carves out and weird exceptions the Supreme court has granted over the centuries going against completely the original intent of the constitution Citizenship being a factor on if the government can spy on you or not is one of them. The constitution should apply to government actions all government actions, not just those take inside the confines of the geographic regions known as the US, and not just those taken against US Citizens. The reading of "the people" to mean it only applies to Citizens is very novel IMO...
  - jonny_eh 4y ago
    Relevant: https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_the_people_in_the_constitution.pdf https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_...
  - mc32 4y ago

nohuck13 4y ago

"This government surveillance has had a measurable chilling effect on Wikipedia users, with research documenting a drop in traffic to Wikipedia articles on sensitive topics, following public revelations about the NSA’s mass surveillance in 2013." Research: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2769645 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2769645

bobsoap 4y ago
...which, ironically, may constitute a net win, or even a desired effect, in the eyes of the proponents of government surveillance.
- noodles_nomore 4y ago
  Compliance is the constitutive purpose of surveillance.
- dotancohen 4y ago
  That is not ironic. It is likely intentional.

fit2rule 4y ago

[dead]

LatteLazy 4y ago

Scotus has refused to hear cases on Mass Surveillance for a long time. It tells you the quality of the court, as this is likely the largest single issue of our time, touching everything from freedom to democracy to criminal law to the role of the judiciary and congress themselves...

tablespoon 4y ago
> It tells you the quality of the court, as this is likely the largest single issue of our time, touching everything from freedom to democracy to criminal law to the role of the judiciary and congress themselves... It doesn't really. This is one of those policy areas that the "tech subculture" tends to fixate on, but that doesn't in any way mean it's actually "the largest single issue of our time." It's pretty helpful to be mindful of your own biases and those of your subculture when making claims like that. What issues does the "tech subculture" not really pay attention to that could actually be far more significant?
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  With the greatest of respect, that's like saying Roe vs Wade was a niche gynaecology case or Miranda rights are just a question of procedural formalities. I am all for getting out of my tech bubble, but mass surveillance is way way beyond just the tech sector. The existence of warrantless wiretapping brings into question whether the courts even have the right to overrule government actions (a power SCOTUS gave itself back in the early days of the republic). They also circumvent key parts of 100 year old criminal law like the exclusionary rule. And that's just the legalise parts. Not to mention freedom, privacy, democracy etc.
  - nceqs3 4y ago
    >The existence of warrantless wiretapping If only FISA required warrants, ohh wait!
    - LatteLazy 4y ago

the_optimist 4y ago

Denied Wikedia Foundation on basis of “state secrets,” upholding a lower court ruling: https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-snubs-wikipedia-bid-challenge-nsa-surveillance-2023-02-21/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-snubs-wikiped... Seems like these justices simply want to wave this away as too complicated, a valuable secret. Well, if it weren’t secret it would be illegal.

TheCoelacanth 4y ago
Absolute horseshit. Surely there are two lawyers somewhere in the entire country who could get a security clearance and argue this out in a closed court. How can we claim to respect the rule of law when "state secrets" are a get-out-of-jail-free card for flagrantly violating the law?
- Nasrudith 4y ago
  We don't.

Xeoncross 4y ago

More details: https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2023/02/21/u-s-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-wikimedia-foundations-challenge-to-nsa-mass-surveillance/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2023/02/21/u-s-supreme-... Actual legal documents: https://knightcolumbia.org/cases/wikimedia-v-nsa https://knightcolumbia.org/cases/wikimedia-v-nsa

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

kevwil 4y ago

<sarcasm> The government refuses to hear arguments against government surveillance of its subjects. Shocking. Next we'll be surprised that Congress won't vote for term limits. </sarcasm>

tptacek 4y ago
If people want congressional term limits, they'll vote in representatives that promise to enact them. People don't want those term limits. They want to pick who they elect to congress for their districts, and they don't care what you think, and the Constitution was written to favor them, not you. I'd prefer term limits too, but I don't think I can high-horse it. Given the prevailing sentiment on HN, we should all be glad there's never been a national referendum on NSA surveillance. From local politics experience: people are generally pretty sanguine about surveillance!
- kryogen1c 4y ago
  > I'd prefer term limits too Fwiw, I used to think this until someone pointed me to a study about how short term limits increase reliance on outside sources like lobbyists. I don't remember the study so I can't link it, but it seems intuitively obvious. Can't become a subject matter expert in 4 years, and for sufficiently complicated jobs you're barely competent by then.
  - dctoedt 4y ago
    My wife has long said, "we have term limits — they're called elections."
    - throwaway675309 4y ago
      Not for Supreme Court justices you don't.
      - idlewords 4y ago
        Sure we do; they serve one term.

credit_guy 4y ago

I am not a lawyer, but I think the legal strategy was flawed. You can sue someone based on first principles (the NSA does something that's against the Constitution, and we care about the Constitution just like everyone else), or on personal harm (the NSA does something that reduced our profits). But trying to bundle both is suboptimal, because it allows a skeptical court to shred the weakest of the two arguments, which in this case is the second. And by the way, I find the second complaint quite weak. Can I sue the NSA because I can't properly sleep at night due to my anxiety of being under constant surveillance? Of course I can sue, it's a free country. But should I expect the Supreme Court to hear my case? Most likely not.

earthling8118 4y ago
I don't believe that there's any reason to expect them to take any case that is inconvenient. Bullet-proof legal case or not. How is that problem worked around?