7 ms·

Glad to see this ruling, but this must be too-little-too-late by now, right?

Zikes 13y ago
Certainly, the NSA is surely dug in like a tick when it comes to domestic surveillance. Even with this ruling, I'm sure it will be years before they actually stop the cited unconstitutional behavior, if ever. My question is, did the process fail in allowing it to happen in the first place, or is this correction after the fact the way the system is intended to work?
- fat0wl 13y ago
  "OK, now we'll really stop surveilling. promise!" they invested so much I'm sure this is how it is for good now, no turning back. that's the screwed up thing. America seems to have a lot of sunken cost fallacy. Once they've begun something it's easier to continue illegally than tear it all down. Same deal with 23andme Genome stuff. Makes more sense to them to operate illegally & take on the FDA than slow down a lucrative business.
  - Zikes 13y ago
    I can seriously picture some sort of phased process where they stop doing one thing, and then another, over the course of several years. It would be as a result of this ruling or one like it, which explicitly calls out the behavior as invasive and harmful, but they would tread on as long as they could thanks to sunk costs. It'd be akin to a bully with a tazer saying "Well I've already spent the past several years tazing you several times a day and I spent sooo much on this fancy tazer, so how about we bring that down to just twice a day for the first year, then daily for the year after that, then every other day, and so on?"
- ChristianMarks 13y ago
  The NSA will adopt the mantra of "quit early, quit often," shrug off the sunk cost, and move on [1,2]. [1] http://freakonomics.com/2011/09/30/new-freakonomics-radio-podcast-the-upside-of-quitting/ http://freakonomics.com/2011/09/30/new-freakonomics-radio-po... [2] http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/harvard-business-school-prof-malhotras-speech-to-mbas-quit-early-and-quit-often http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/harvard-business-schoo...
lukev 13y ago
Yes and no. The NSA clearly at least makes some attempt to rationalize its actions according to the law and precedent (hence the focus on "metadata", exceptions the administrations has made for "national security", etc). This is true even if we on the outside believe those rationalizations to be rather flimsy or themselves unconstitutional. Having an official ruling that explicitly states that certain activities are unconstitutional means, at the very least, that they must come up with new rationalizations (or stop rationalizing altogether, though at that point it'll be harder for your Average Joe NSA Engineer to continue to believe they're the good guy).
- rayiner 13y ago
  > The NSA clearly at least makes some attempt to rationalize its actions according to the law and precedent (hence the focus on "metadata", exceptions the administrations has made for "national security", etc). It's misleading to call the NSA's legal justifications "flimsy" rationalizations. They're rooted in two well-established principles of American law: 1) Foreigners on foreign soil don't have Constitutional rights. 2) Information knowingly exposed to third parties (such as banks, accountants, etc) are fair game for judicial subpoenas. The NSA's programs aren't resting on reed-like rationalizations. They may be unconstitutional at the edges (procedures for ensuring that target is foreign?), but they're otherwise on solid foundations. Furthermore, the courts won't do anything about (1). It's too deeply embedded a premise. As for (2), courts may very well pull that foundation out from underneath the NSA. But it will be a long process, because it's tied up in the same doctrine that justifies things like the SEC subpoenaing Enron's records from its accountants, and other powers it would be difficult to convince people to abandon.

Zikes 13y ago

Certainly, the NSA is surely dug in like a tick when it comes to domestic surveillance. Even with this ruling, I'm sure it will be years before they actually stop the cited unconstitutional behavior, if ever. My question is, did the process fail in allowing it to happen in the first place, or is this correction after the fact the way the system is intended to work?

fat0wl 13y ago
"OK, now we'll really stop surveilling. promise!" they invested so much I'm sure this is how it is for good now, no turning back. that's the screwed up thing. America seems to have a lot of sunken cost fallacy. Once they've begun something it's easier to continue illegally than tear it all down. Same deal with 23andme Genome stuff. Makes more sense to them to operate illegally & take on the FDA than slow down a lucrative business.
- Zikes 13y ago
  I can seriously picture some sort of phased process where they stop doing one thing, and then another, over the course of several years. It would be as a result of this ruling or one like it, which explicitly calls out the behavior as invasive and harmful, but they would tread on as long as they could thanks to sunk costs. It'd be akin to a bully with a tazer saying "Well I've already spent the past several years tazing you several times a day and I spent sooo much on this fancy tazer, so how about we bring that down to just twice a day for the first year, then daily for the year after that, then every other day, and so on?"
ChristianMarks 13y ago
The NSA will adopt the mantra of "quit early, quit often," shrug off the sunk cost, and move on [1,2]. [1] http://freakonomics.com/2011/09/30/new-freakonomics-radio-podcast-the-upside-of-quitting/ http://freakonomics.com/2011/09/30/new-freakonomics-radio-po... [2] http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/harvard-business-school-prof-malhotras-speech-to-mbas-quit-early-and-quit-often http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/harvard-business-schoo...

lukev 13y ago

Yes and no. The NSA clearly at least makes some attempt to rationalize its actions according to the law and precedent (hence the focus on "metadata", exceptions the administrations has made for "national security", etc). This is true even if we on the outside believe those rationalizations to be rather flimsy or themselves unconstitutional. Having an official ruling that explicitly states that certain activities are unconstitutional means, at the very least, that they must come up with new rationalizations (or stop rationalizing altogether, though at that point it'll be harder for your Average Joe NSA Engineer to continue to believe they're the good guy).

rayiner 13y ago
> The NSA clearly at least makes some attempt to rationalize its actions according to the law and precedent (hence the focus on "metadata", exceptions the administrations has made for "national security", etc). It's misleading to call the NSA's legal justifications "flimsy" rationalizations. They're rooted in two well-established principles of American law: 1) Foreigners on foreign soil don't have Constitutional rights. 2) Information knowingly exposed to third parties (such as banks, accountants, etc) are fair game for judicial subpoenas. The NSA's programs aren't resting on reed-like rationalizations. They may be unconstitutional at the edges (procedures for ensuring that target is foreign?), but they're otherwise on solid foundations. Furthermore, the courts won't do anything about (1). It's too deeply embedded a premise. As for (2), courts may very well pull that foundation out from underneath the NSA. But it will be a long process, because it's tied up in the same doctrine that justifies things like the SEC subpoenaing Enron's records from its accountants, and other powers it would be difficult to convince people to abandon.