4 ms·

The efforts aren't illegal, in the Constitutional sense (U.S.), so long as the searches are deemed reasonable. Two branches of government (Executive and Judicia

by robg 13y ago

The efforts aren't illegal, in the Constitutional sense (U.S.), so long as the searches are deemed reasonable. Two branches of government (Executive and Judicial) have generally been in agreement that searches for the purposes of National Security (very broadly defined) are reasonable. And Congress has not passed laws to the contrary. In fact, Congress has been exceedingly pliant on these issues. They've been passing laws that not only make these searches legal, but exempting Telecoms from any lawsuits for their cooperation. A different Executive (say, Rand Paul) could effect many changes on his own. But history suggests that, when given War Powers, Executives of both parties have been very careful to relinquish that authority. And Rand Paul will have a hard enough time in his own party.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> And Congress has not passed laws to the contrary. Congress did, in fact, pass the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 "to the contrary", expressly prohibiting (and criminalizing) many of the types of searches (both physical and electronic) for the stated purposes of "National Security" that had been done prior to the Act. Of course, the executive was successful in getting Congress to remove many of the restrictions in FISA in the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, including retroactive immunity for private firms that had cooperated in the executive's violations of FISA, but then, if the scope of the surveillance in violation of FISA was as broad as current surveillance appears to be, it may well have been the source of the leverage to get the change through Congress.
- robg 13y ago
  Sorry, by "Congress" I wasn't referring to the version in place 35 years ago in the post-Watergate Era. As you note, the Congress of today has rolled back FISA and added new, more pliant laws (e.g., Patriot Act). We are in a different era where all three branches are gladly pushing the reasonable clause far beyond the intended use. That's the result and it is Constitutional because all three branches say so.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Sorry, by "Congress" I wasn't referring to the version in place 35 years ago in the post-Watergate Era. I am not sue that the "version" of Congress has changed as much as the attitude of the people toward the government. While abstract anti-government rhetoric is perhaps even more common now than in the post-Watergate Era, specifically directed outrage at particular abuses like the (far more pervasive today than in the Watergate Era) use of national security resources for surveillance of the population (and not just foreign communication) is far more muted.
Smirnoff 13y ago
So why can't, let's say, German citizens sue Google and alike in Germany? I am pretty sure many foreigners feel that some NSA programs are unconstitutional according to other countries' constitution. What if many foreign citizens from many countries sue internet companies for assisting the Big Brother in spying on these foreign citizens? Will that force Google to stop assisting the NSA?
- jacquesm 13y ago
  The only thing that will stop Google assisting the USA is if: 1) people desert google in very large numbers 2) google moves its primary headquarters to another country (Not the administrative center, that's just a tax trick).

by robg 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

> And Congress has not passed laws to the contrary. Congress did, in fact, pass the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 "to the contrary", expressly prohibiting (and criminalizing) many of the types of searches (both physical and electronic) for the stated purposes of "National Security" that had been done prior to the Act. Of course, the executive was successful in getting Congress to remove many of the restrictions in FISA in the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, including retroactive immunity for private firms that had cooperated in the executive's violations of FISA, but then, if the scope of the surveillance in violation of FISA was as broad as current surveillance appears to be, it may well have been the source of the leverage to get the change through Congress.

robg 13y ago
Sorry, by "Congress" I wasn't referring to the version in place 35 years ago in the post-Watergate Era. As you note, the Congress of today has rolled back FISA and added new, more pliant laws (e.g., Patriot Act). We are in a different era where all three branches are gladly pushing the reasonable clause far beyond the intended use. That's the result and it is Constitutional because all three branches say so.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Sorry, by "Congress" I wasn't referring to the version in place 35 years ago in the post-Watergate Era. I am not sue that the "version" of Congress has changed as much as the attitude of the people toward the government. While abstract anti-government rhetoric is perhaps even more common now than in the post-Watergate Era, specifically directed outrage at particular abuses like the (far more pervasive today than in the Watergate Era) use of national security resources for surveillance of the population (and not just foreign communication) is far more muted.

Smirnoff 13y ago

So why can't, let's say, German citizens sue Google and alike in Germany? I am pretty sure many foreigners feel that some NSA programs are unconstitutional according to other countries' constitution. What if many foreign citizens from many countries sue internet companies for assisting the Big Brother in spying on these foreign citizens? Will that force Google to stop assisting the NSA?

jacquesm 13y ago
The only thing that will stop Google assisting the USA is if: 1) people desert google in very large numbers 2) google moves its primary headquarters to another country (Not the administrative center, that's just a tax trick).