10 ms·
Court found NSA surveillance unconstitutional in 2011
- pvnick 13y agoWonderful, just more ammunition to use on my Restore the Fourth rally event page
- ryguytilidie 13y agoOne of the things I don't really understand about the way laws work here in the US is when something like this happens. We will declare something unconstitutional and then its like "okay lets form a committee to make sure it doesn't happen again...whats that you say? What the NSA is doing is secret and we can't monitor it? Okay, well then just go on with what you're doing, I assume you're following the constitution now" I mean, I feel like following the constitution is probably the most important thing we can encourage, and its basically like "meh, lets hope they stop violating the constitution". I simply do not get it. Priority #1 should be making sure that the NSA is following the constitution. There is 0 point in fighting foreign wars or anything like that until this is fixed. The NSA's budget should be reduced to 0 until there is 100% proof this has stopped.
- Cowen 13y agoThere's nothing in the US legal code that creates consequences for disobeying the judicial branch's judgement. Obeying them is a strong suggestion, and disobeying could conceivably be used as evidence in an impeachment trial, but that's about it. This isn't a new issue either. It's over 150 years old. Andrew Jackson didn't even get a slap on the wrist for not enforcing the Supreme Court's ruling in Worcester v. Georgia.
- thematt 13y agoWhat about contempt of court?
- jeffasinger 13y agoWho enforces that?
- Tangaroa 13y agoThe civil police force.
- saraid216 13y ago> This isn't a new issue either. Actually, it's one of the fundamental checks and balances. The judiciary has no executive power. The reason a conviction in court sucks for the defendant is because the executive branch actors enforce that conviction by taking the convict to jail.
- javajosh 13y agoUltimate authority rests with the executive because they have the guns.
- saraid216 13y agoThe executive has the guns because that's how it was designed.
- dredmorbius 13y agoHowever the legislative branch pays for those guns (and the men who hold them, the ammunition that goes in them, the vehicles which transport them, and the fuel which powers those). It's called checks and balances for a reason. There is no center of power, though the balance may shift over time (and yes, the executive has a great deal of power).
- chris_mahan 13y agoThe people who vote for the NSA budget don't know what they are voting for, because the NSA activities that the budget is paying for are State Secrets. Also, of course, these activities are Very Important so America can win the War on Terror and eliminate Al Qaeda and all the other Evil People in the whole World, so, as a Senator, you would find yourself hard-pressed for raising your re-election campaign funds if you were to "side with the terrorists" and failed to approve the budget for these secret activities.
- pionar 13y agoOh, they know. Legislators have pretty high clearance.
- dailyrorschach 13y agoThey don't actually. A member of Congress can't just ask the head of the NSA to tell them what's going on and expect the complete details. Each house has a Select Intelligence Committee who do in fact receive briefs on these subjects from time to time. The Speaker of the House and Minority Leader in the House serve as ex officio members of the House committee and the Majority Leader and Minority Leader of the Senate serve as ex officio members of the Senate committee. When it comes to these votes on these issues where intelligence is discussed, members look to follow the lead of members of this committee for guidance on how to vote, as these members are barred from divulging the exact contents of the meeting. (Though it may be argued they could easily enter it into the public record and have immunity via the speech and debate clause.) This committee is also supposed to exercise oversight but that's often problematic because... Once the Congress has passed these laws, the Executive Branch will often interpet the laws as they see fit, and because of the clandestine nature of all of this, there is currently no mechanism by which they must or do inform the committee on how they've interpreted the law. There is very little Congressional oversight of clandestine activities, and this has been the case historically except for very rare occasions where the lid has been blown off so to speak and public hearings were held. The oversight here is the weakest link and in the absence of strong oversight, people in power will continue to expand and condense their power in Washington as history has shown.
- ChuckMcM 13y agoIn theory, the Congress achieves this power by their ability to approve appointments by the President. However they have greatly diminished the impact of that power by allowing partisan politics to pollute the business of vetting someone for competence.
- chris_mahan 13y agoA quote by Joseph Goebbels: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." Who was Joseph Goebbels? Per Wikipedia: Paul Joseph Goebbels (29 October 1897 – 1 May 1945) was a German politician and Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels)
- spoiledtechie 13y agoI can't upvote this enough...
- redofrac 13y agoI wouldn't put so much emphasis on the source: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels#Misattributed http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels#Misattributed
- chris_mahan 13y agoWell, if people go read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie then perhaps the light will start to shine in their minds. <sarcasm>And what? You dare to question the absolute veracity of wikipedia? You will be sent to the Re-Education Camp immediately?</sarcasm> <notsarcasm>Having to use the sarcasm tag means enough people are unable to recognize sarcasm. I blame the education system. It's a damn shame though.</notsarcasm>
- redofrac 13y agoThe sentiment has value, but it feels misleading to need to back it up by aligning the idea with the Nazi Germany. (The closest quote by Goebbels appears to be about England rather than Germany, not sure if that makes it more or less relevant here)
- IAmAI343 13y agoThe only real way I see of swinging the power back to the people is to use encryption in all our personal communications, that includes e-mail, voice, video. Unfortunately there is a very real possibility that the government has access to the CA keys so that it would render any encryption useless. However, it seems that a new type of quantum key distribution system [1] may allow us citizens to share the keys such that not even the government may be able to get them. I don't really know much about this but it does seem promising. It may be the only way to ensure that only those that we choose can see our data. I would not be surprised though if the government tried to pass laws to make such technology illegal. Just like it tried to make military grade encryption illegal by claiming it was a munitions weapon.[2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_key_distribution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_key_distribution [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
- bmelton 13y agoWell, so long as we aren't planning on SSL/TLS to keep us safe[1]. http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/03/13/cryptographers-show-mathematically-crackable-flaws-in-common-web-encryption/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/03/13/cryptog...
- sk5t 13y agoA hostile entity owning the public CAs doesn't render "any" encryption useless--just PKI that trusts those common CAs. We could revert to the PGP signing parties of the 90s, or a variety of other key exchange protocols... just no more relying on a certificate because Thawte, Verisign, or (ha!) Comodo say it's good.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- Zigurd 13y agoSome people who run corporate intranets have long used self-signed certs for this reason. You don't need quantum cryptography to do this.
- pdubs 13y agoIt's not as malicious as Ron makes it out to be. Here's Groklaw's bit on it: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130610101148583 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130610101148583 >The opinion Movant seeks cannot be released by the Government not only because it is classified but also because it is under this Court’s seal. As Judge Bates has explained, “[t]he FISC is a unique court,” whereas “[o]ther courts operate primarily in public, with secrecy the exception; the FISC operates primarily in secret, with public access the exception.” In re Release, 526 F. Supp. 2d at 487-88. The FISC maintains this operational secrecy because, unlike any other court, its “entire docket relates to the collection of foreign intelligence by the federal government.” Id. at 487. It's secret simply by the nature of the court, not by specific executive instruction.
- wavefunction 13y agoThe court is not secret, nor are its decisions intended to be permanently secret. The idea behind seeking temporarily secret court-orders was that they would effect ongoing investigations, but that the court-orders would become public when the charges were brought. An example is obtaining a wire-tap order for an individual. If it were automatically public, the individual might be watching the public record and see that they were being wire-tapped and make the wire-tap meaningless. Now we have a situation where the decisions remain in secret for perpetuity? It's simple bullshit and an attempt to "route around" the Constitutional protections.
- nikcub 13y agoThe broader metadata requests had a declassification date of 2038 - they must have argued that it isn't tied to any one case, and that it could always threaten an ongoing case if made public. It is interesting that yet again we end up in a preposterous situation, where you can suck in all call data and not tell anyone, due to a long chain of small concessions (patriot act, fisa review, 'business records' condition, etc.)
- rafcavallaro 13y agoHow misleading of you! Why quote the DOJ's obviously biased opinion? Better to quote the simple fact pointed out on that very same groklaw page that the secret court did in fact make a ruling that some surveillance was a violation of the Fourth Ammendment and/or violated the spirit of the law: "EFF asked the government for a copy of "any written opinion or order" of the FISA court in which the court held that the surveillance conducted under the FISA Amendments Act (2008 version) "was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment" or had "circumvented the spirit of the law." After some of the usual back and forth in discovery, the government revealed that it had found one such [!], but it refused to provide it on the grounds that it had no authority under FISC rules "to release FISC opinions to a FOIA requester or any other member of the public without a FISC order." So that's why EFF is now approaching the court itself, asking for a ruling that the government is allowed to provide it. The ACLU asked, and was denied, once before for the same relief it now is asking for, but now, after the latest events and the President's encouragement of public debate saying it's healthy for a democracy, it is renewing its request."
- ck2 13y agoThe saddest part is not a single candidate from either major party is going to reject this a couple years from now. They might even take it a step further with drones. you have to know everything in order to be completely safe - Erich Mielke, head of the Stasi, East Germany
- jacoblyles 13y agoThe Pauls, and other reps supported by Campaign for Liberty (Justin Amash).
- cantankerous 13y agoAnd most hard line, true progressives. I think many folks have a hard time stomaching the Pauls and their cohorts on a variety of other issues. Unfortunate for the Pauls (and Amash), but true. That said this is a good opportunity for both ends of the spectrum to work together.
- jacoblyles 13y agoEnough people can stomach them in their districts to elect them. Progressives would turn a lot of stomachs off the blue coastal areas. This site has an overrepresentation from California and Europe, which skews our perception.
- ttrreeww 13y agoDoes anyone care about the constitution anymore?
- godgod 13y agoObama does. He uses it as toilet paper.
- beefman 13y agoThis looks like blogspam to me https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/government-says-secret-court-opinion-law-underlying-prism-program-needs-stay https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/government-says-secret...
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- lisper 13y agoFWIW, I didn't submit this item.
- at-fates-hands 13y agoObama speech from August 1, 2007: http://www.cfr.org/us-election-2008/obamas-speech-woodrow-wilson-center/p13974 http://www.cfr.org/us-election-2008/obamas-speech-woodrow-wi... "This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary. This Administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not. There are no short-cuts to protecting America, and that is why the fifth part of my strategy is doing the hard and patient work to secure a more resilient homeland." I'm still wondering when this idea of defending the people against this type of thing went out the window. . .
- godgod 13y agoThank you for posting this. I posted the exact same speech yesterday on another thread. The reason why this statement by Obama doesn't jive is because he's not working for you and me. He's working for people who put him in power. You, me, your mom, your dad, we're all being lied to by our government. I'm mad as hell...and I'm not going to take it anymore!
- shpxnvz 13y ago> I'm still wondering when this idea of defending the people against this type of thing went out the window... The moment it achieved it's intended political goal, I suspect.
- drawkbox 13y agoIf there was a reason to impeach a president this might be it. Nixon was impeached for spying on a few competitors but eerily similarly using the FBI, CIA and IRS to spy on competitors and was statesman enough to resign. Bill Clinton for being too good and making people pry into his personal life. So far this trumps both combined. Granted this is the first time technology has allowed this amount of spying and illegal search and seizure of papers so timing would put any president there. I am scared at what will happen 2-3 presidents from now if the executive branch overreach continues, the exact thing Obama was complaining about in 2008. Considering he was not for it before he became president.
- godgod 13y agoThis is a criminal government!
- pattisapu 13y agoNothing in the filing cited here even implies that any court found anything unconstitutional whatsoever. This seems to be an instance of the old "telephone game" of blogs citing other blogs, in an admittedly emotional issue, although as far as I can tell the actual court activity here involves the rather technical issue of unsealing court records, not the merits of any constitutional matters.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- jacoblyles 13y agoIf the Supreme Court makes a ruling and nobody follows it, does it really have any power? If the legislature makes 10% as many rules as the executive, who really legislates? If branches of the executive insist on their "independence" from elected officials, is the US really a Democratic Republic? What kind of country do we live in, really? http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-24/opinions/39495251_1_federal-agencies-federal-government-fourth-branch http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-24/opinions/39495...
- ck2 13y agoJoe Biden (2006) I don't have to listen to your phone calls to know what you're doing. If I know every single phone call you made, I'm able to determine every single person you talked to; I can get a pattern about your life that is very, very intrusive. Video: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5863823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5863823
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- Tangaroa 13y agoI submitted a better link yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5859658 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5859658 It is "better", in that: 1. It goes to the original source, not a blog post giving a five-line summary of another blog post. 2. It is relevant to the acts of which the NSA was recently accused (specifically, the collection of Verizon metadata) and not about some other vague undefined activity that the NSA has already been forced to stop doing. 3. It discusses in detail the Constitutional issues involved and the history of related court rulings. 4. It is the actual US Supreme Court ruling on the subject.
- joering2 13y agoI am having very hard time seeing the difference between going door to door just to find something, or going from computer to computer / account to account, just in case, to find something. Sure, the meaning of transportation changes, but just because you have a way to do something, it doesnt mean you should do it. Whether its door to door unreasonable search (hello first amendment), or account to account unreasonable search, its still the same thing! And no court in their sound mind should find it different.
- switch33 13y agoHa ha, precedence. Now the other court rulings should rule with similar rulings! :D
- Spooky23 13y agoWhat I find scary is that if the government can keep the secret rulings of the secret court secret at will, what is the point of bypassing even the nominal oversight that the secret court provides?