3 ms·

If this holds, it could be a key ruling. The government's assertions of the need for secrecy as a matter of national security in virtually everything have essen

If this holds, it could be a key ruling. The government's assertions of the need for secrecy as a matter of national security in virtually everything have essentially given it carte blanche to do as it pleases AND without true oversight.

apalmer 13y ago
The NSA program has true oversight, the 'problem' is that the overseers cant be bothered to actually excersize any restraints on the program.
- mpyne 13y ago
  How do you know? If you judge just by warrant success rate, you should realize that a judge can informally reject a warrant multiple times, and only when it's finally satisfactory to the judge does it end up counting as being 'formally proposed'. Justice Kollar-Kotelly described part of the process in a WaPo story, IIRC.
rayiner 13y ago
The state secrets defense isn't all that common. It's usually used to keep weapons programs and the like secret, where we don't want to reveal the extent of our military capabilities. National security things don't get litigated that often more because nobody has standing.
- GVIrish 13y ago
  It used to not be all that common. Now it is routinely being used to prevent people from uncovering the massive and pervasive spying apparatus.
- MaysonL 13y ago
  Go look up the original SCOTUS case for the state secrets defense: it was based on Pentagon lies. There was no, repeat NO national security secret involved, merely facts which would have embarassed people and possibly ruined careers (which should probably have been ruined).
  - andrewljohnson 13y ago
    I don't think it's so cut and dry with United States v. Reynolds. Sure, the documents actually didn't contain state secrets about the B29. But then again, SCOTUS didn't examine the documents. SCOTUS is basically saying with this precedent "If the executive says it's a war secret, it's a war secret, and the tort case of some grieving family can wait for another day." So maybe we don't agree with that precedent, and we need a new law. Current precedent did not occur because SCOTUS read the docs and let the government lie, though. It occurred because the justices decided not to read the document, and instead put national security above a tort. Some stuff I read: * http://www.silha.umn.edu/news/summer2003.php?entry=200788 http://www.silha.umn.edu/news/summer2003.php?entry=200788 * http://loc.gov/law/help/usconlaw/pdf/PSQ_122_3_Fisher.pdf http://loc.gov/law/help/usconlaw/pdf/PSQ_122_3_Fisher.pdf * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  That's actually the point. The government attempted to extend the state secrets defense to cover the NSA's covert activities. But, they've been shot down by this court. Not only do they have to find new cover to justify keeping this in the dark, it also inspires the hope that some of this carte blanche activity granted by the kangaroo FISA Court (and by Chief Roberts to some extent) can be successfully challenged. And, in general, that the need for secrecy (and the activity itself) will someday need to be justified in total.
pekk 13y ago
A de facto surveillance state is created simply by the networking together of the companies which give you internet service, search service, serve all your pages, connect your VOIP calls, handle your transactions, analyse your purchases, collect health information on you, etc. And trade all your data among themselves freely. And startups are in the vanguard of all this data collection. We lost when we allowed all this data to be concentrated together in this way. We let it happen because it was done by private industry rather than the government, which we wouldn't have stood for. After we let that happen, government access to this data (by subpoena if nothing else) was a given. But even if we somehow forbade the government from using it tomorrow, it would still be accessible to these corporations and their political allies, with even less transparency and less accountability. The public doesn't know what private corporations are doing, because there is no transparency. If the public knew, it wouldn't care what they are doing, because they are understood to have carte blanche under capitalism. Corporate obligations are supposedly exhausted by making profit or looking out for stockholders. And even if the public cared about corporate surveillance, there is really nothing they could do about it, because the corporation has a 'right' to do almost whatever it wants as long as it has a strong income stream. If you care about the surveillance and its abuse in itself, you have to go much deeper than sanctioning the NSA.

apalmer 13y ago

The NSA program has true oversight, the 'problem' is that the overseers cant be bothered to actually excersize any restraints on the program.

mpyne 13y ago
How do you know? If you judge just by warrant success rate, you should realize that a judge can informally reject a warrant multiple times, and only when it's finally satisfactory to the judge does it end up counting as being 'formally proposed'. Justice Kollar-Kotelly described part of the process in a WaPo story, IIRC.

rayiner 13y ago

The state secrets defense isn't all that common. It's usually used to keep weapons programs and the like secret, where we don't want to reveal the extent of our military capabilities. National security things don't get litigated that often more because nobody has standing.

GVIrish 13y ago
It used to not be all that common. Now it is routinely being used to prevent people from uncovering the massive and pervasive spying apparatus.
MaysonL 13y ago
Go look up the original SCOTUS case for the state secrets defense: it was based on Pentagon lies. There was no, repeat NO national security secret involved, merely facts which would have embarassed people and possibly ruined careers (which should probably have been ruined).
- andrewljohnson 13y ago
  I don't think it's so cut and dry with United States v. Reynolds. Sure, the documents actually didn't contain state secrets about the B29. But then again, SCOTUS didn't examine the documents. SCOTUS is basically saying with this precedent "If the executive says it's a war secret, it's a war secret, and the tort case of some grieving family can wait for another day." So maybe we don't agree with that precedent, and we need a new law. Current precedent did not occur because SCOTUS read the docs and let the government lie, though. It occurred because the justices decided not to read the document, and instead put national security above a tort. Some stuff I read: * http://www.silha.umn.edu/news/summer2003.php?entry=200788 http://www.silha.umn.edu/news/summer2003.php?entry=200788 * http://loc.gov/law/help/usconlaw/pdf/PSQ_122_3_Fisher.pdf http://loc.gov/law/help/usconlaw/pdf/PSQ_122_3_Fisher.pdf * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege
unclebucknasty 13y ago
That's actually the point. The government attempted to extend the state secrets defense to cover the NSA's covert activities. But, they've been shot down by this court. Not only do they have to find new cover to justify keeping this in the dark, it also inspires the hope that some of this carte blanche activity granted by the kangaroo FISA Court (and by Chief Roberts to some extent) can be successfully challenged. And, in general, that the need for secrecy (and the activity itself) will someday need to be justified in total.

pekk 13y ago

A de facto surveillance state is created simply by the networking together of the companies which give you internet service, search service, serve all your pages, connect your VOIP calls, handle your transactions, analyse your purchases, collect health information on you, etc. And trade all your data among themselves freely. And startups are in the vanguard of all this data collection. We lost when we allowed all this data to be concentrated together in this way. We let it happen because it was done by private industry rather than the government, which we wouldn't have stood for. After we let that happen, government access to this data (by subpoena if nothing else) was a given. But even if we somehow forbade the government from using it tomorrow, it would still be accessible to these corporations and their political allies, with even less transparency and less accountability. The public doesn't know what private corporations are doing, because there is no transparency. If the public knew, it wouldn't care what they are doing, because they are understood to have carte blanche under capitalism. Corporate obligations are supposedly exhausted by making profit or looking out for stockholders. And even if the public cared about corporate surveillance, there is really nothing they could do about it, because the corporation has a 'right' to do almost whatever it wants as long as it has a strong income stream. If you care about the surveillance and its abuse in itself, you have to go much deeper than sanctioning the NSA.