3 ms·

Basically it was a case where people thought they were being spied on by the NSA, but couldn't prove it. They wanted to bring suit to force the NSA to admit tha

by jstalin 13y ago

Basically it was a case where people thought they were being spied on by the NSA, but couldn't prove it. They wanted to bring suit to force the NSA to admit that they were spying. The court said that because they had no evidence they were being spied on, they didn't have standing to bring the suit. Yes, I know, circular logic.

dragonwriter 13y ago
Actually, the important thing is that the court said that part of the reason for its decisions was that there would be an effective remedy in the case that the allegedly-improper spying was used in criminal prosecution, because the government would disclose that the spying had occurred, at which point it could be challenged. The whole issue of the letter is that the representations made by the government to the Court on which it relied in finding that there was a remedy available at a later point which would be more appropriate were not true.
- pflats 13y ago
  The loophole in the first part, of course, is that once you've spied on them, it's often straightforward enough to backtrack out a legal vector to investigate the target, and "discover" the information you already knew. And then you take that poisonous tree out back, burn it to the ground, and never mention spying anywhere in your case. (As an aside, dragonwriter, your posts throughout topic have been outstandingly helpful. Thanks.)
  - rhizome 13y ago
    it's often straightforward enough to backtrack out a legal vector to investigate the target, and "discover" the information you already knew This is the general idea behind the technique of Parallel Construction.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > The loophole in the first part, of course, is that once you've spied on them, it's often straightforward enough to backtrack out a legal vector to investigate the target, and "discover" the information you already knew. I agree that that's a problem with the original decision even beyond taking the government's representation at face value (and, really, a fundamental problem with the general approach that the exclusionary rule is usually the exclusive remedy for illegal search and seizure, which goes far beyond just the NSA electronic surveillance issue.)

by jstalin 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

Actually, the important thing is that the court said that part of the reason for its decisions was that there would be an effective remedy in the case that the allegedly-improper spying was used in criminal prosecution, because the government would disclose that the spying had occurred, at which point it could be challenged. The whole issue of the letter is that the representations made by the government to the Court on which it relied in finding that there was a remedy available at a later point which would be more appropriate were not true.

pflats 13y ago
The loophole in the first part, of course, is that once you've spied on them, it's often straightforward enough to backtrack out a legal vector to investigate the target, and "discover" the information you already knew. And then you take that poisonous tree out back, burn it to the ground, and never mention spying anywhere in your case. (As an aside, dragonwriter, your posts throughout topic have been outstandingly helpful. Thanks.)
- rhizome 13y ago
  it's often straightforward enough to backtrack out a legal vector to investigate the target, and "discover" the information you already knew This is the general idea behind the technique of Parallel Construction.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > The loophole in the first part, of course, is that once you've spied on them, it's often straightforward enough to backtrack out a legal vector to investigate the target, and "discover" the information you already knew. I agree that that's a problem with the original decision even beyond taking the government's representation at face value (and, really, a fundamental problem with the general approach that the exclusionary rule is usually the exclusive remedy for illegal search and seizure, which goes far beyond just the NSA electronic surveillance issue.)