7 ms·

Judge rules for NSA in warrantless search case

121 points by sinak 12y ago

sinak 12y ago
Here is the actual ruling itself: https://ia801403.us.archive.org/22/items/gov.uscourts.cand.207206/gov.uscourts.cand.207206.321.0.pdf https://ia801403.us.archive.org/22/items/gov.uscourts.cand.2... Excerpt: > Disclosure of this classified information would risk informing adversaries of the specific nature and operational details of the Upstream collection process and the scope of the NSA’s participation in the program. Notwithstanding the unauthorized public disclosures made in the recent past and the Government’s subsequent releases of previously classified information about certain NSA intelligence gathering activities since 2013, the Court notes that substantial details about the challenged program remain classified. The question of whether Plaintiffs have standing and the substantive issue of whether there are Fourth Amendment violations cannot be litigated without impinging on that heightened security classification. Because a fair and full adjudication of the Government Defendants’ defenses would require harmful disclosures of national security information that is protected by the state secrets privilege, the Court must exclude such evidence from the case. So the court isn't ruling on whether NSA surveillance is constitutional. They're saying NSA surveillance is too secret for them to be able to rule on, because state secrets privilege.
- themartorana 12y ago
  Right. You can't establish that you were harmed, but the easily obtainable evidence you should be able to present in discovery is classified. I know it exists, you know it exists, but State Secrets, so no.
- disposition2 12y ago
  The problem of course being the national security exception has been abused since its inception, and since its inception we've only seen an expansion on its use as well as an expansion on the rights abused with its use. I understand the need for actual national security and not divulging details about certain actions but when half the time the exception is used to save face the court should consider stepping into the realm of reality rather than just trusting that the government isn't just trying to once again save face / hide the abuse of rights.
diafygi 12y ago
Firstly, https://eff.org/donate https://eff.org/donate Secondly, from the judgment[1]: Based on the public record, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish a sufficient factual basis to find they have standing to sue under the Fourth Amendment regarding the possible interception of their Internet communications. Another day, another ruling that we can't prove we are spied on. Whenever you can get the authority to rule on the actual program's legality, it's ruled illegal[2]. Thirdly, from the judgment: Further, having reviewed the Government Defendants’ classified submissions, the Court finds that the Claim must be dismissed because even if Plaintiffs could establish standing, a potential Fourth Amendment Claim would have to be dismissed on the basis that any possible defenses would require disclosure of state secret information. This is the surprising part. How in the hell can a federal law trump the Constitution? This part of the ruling sets the precedent that the Executive can violate the Constitutional rights of anyone, including other branches of government (including the Judiciary itself!), and get away with it if the program is a state secret, even if you have evidence of the violation. This is very clear and firm loss of power of the Judiciary and Legislative branches. Why is the Judiciary rolling over like this? The rule of law is being systematically shut down all around them, and they are just sitting there making themselves obsolete. The reason we have three branches of government that are adversarial is so that when one starts to grab for power, the others shut it down. Unchallengable Constitutional violations is exactly the kind of power grab that the Judiciary is supposed to shut down. Fourthly: https://eff.org/donate https://eff.org/donate EDIT: Okay, after having read the full judgment, the very strange thing about it is that the can't-sue-even-if-have-standing claim is almost entirely without references. The standing section has tons of references to prior case law. But the state secrets section has very few citations and and is quite a bit of "grave damage to national security" talk without citation. --- [1]: https://ia801403.us.archive.org/22/items/gov.uscourts.cand.207206/gov.uscourts.cand.207206.321.0.pdf https://ia801403.us.archive.org/22/items/gov.uscourts.cand.2... [2]: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/world/europe/electronic-surveillance-by-spy-agencies-was-illegal-british-court-says.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/world/europe/electronic-su...
- toufka 12y ago
  Deliberately teeing up for the appellate court? From the judge's perspective, ruling against the government at this stage in the case is very dangerous - but making a ruling like this gets it off his plate and up the food chain (where it would go anyway). And in this way it gets up there quicker.
ancap 12y ago
Big surprise. The government rules in favor of the government. Separation of powers is a myth.
- zmanian 12y ago
  The government isn't a unified entity. It's worth watching what arms of the government and governmental elites cooperate with the totalitarian surveillance regime and what arms defect.
  - jnbiche 12y ago
    So what arms are defecting?
  - hitchhiker999 12y ago
    Are you kidding? Yes it's a unified entity. I will chop off a leg if a government 'arm' defects. Go back to sleep America, everything is under control.
eyeareque 12y ago
I wonder how many secret meetings the judge had with the NSA to come up with this expected ruling.
- 300bps 12y ago
  This is just one of the biggest dangers of having an agency that spies on everyone with impunity. Limitless blackmail capability could make almost anyone conform to their will.
  - eyeareque 12y ago
    I think the NSA down voted me. And I totally agree with your statement.
vonklaus 12y ago
Absolutely comical. White argued the plaintiffs didn't have enough information about the program to sue. Ahhhh, the ol' you don't know enough about our highly and intentionally secret program to make a case against it...
tmaly 12y ago
I thought the constitution was suppose to trump other laws. Is this state secrets law a new amendment I missed?
- coldcode 12y ago
  Only the Supreme Court can effectively decide such a thing. While tragic in some ways, at the level of this judge he is to small potatoes to deal with a major constitutional issue. Of course I doubt the Supremes want to touch this either.
- Slartibreakfast 12y ago
  The next thing you know, we'll have a Secret Court. Oh, wait.
  - eternalban 12y ago
    Actually the next thing is people like us getting rounded up ..
rasz_pl 12y ago
We need a brave insider leak some private data obtained using one of NSA programs of _every single federal judge_. Something simple, like one full recording of a phone call/private email per judge/judges spouse. Snowden showed that every analyst can just log in and get at this shit with no checks, no warrants, no supervision. Somehow people in power still think they are above the rest.
- hammock 12y ago
  Maybe they are doing that now, just blackmailing the judges with it

121 points by sinak 12y ago

sinak 12y ago

Here is the actual ruling itself: https://ia801403.us.archive.org/22/items/gov.uscourts.cand.207206/gov.uscourts.cand.207206.321.0.pdf https://ia801403.us.archive.org/22/items/gov.uscourts.cand.2... Excerpt: > Disclosure of this classified information would risk informing adversaries of the specific nature and operational details of the Upstream collection process and the scope of the NSA’s participation in the program. Notwithstanding the unauthorized public disclosures made in the recent past and the Government’s subsequent releases of previously classified information about certain NSA intelligence gathering activities since 2013, the Court notes that substantial details about the challenged program remain classified. The question of whether Plaintiffs have standing and the substantive issue of whether there are Fourth Amendment violations cannot be litigated without impinging on that heightened security classification. Because a fair and full adjudication of the Government Defendants’ defenses would require harmful disclosures of national security information that is protected by the state secrets privilege, the Court must exclude such evidence from the case. So the court isn't ruling on whether NSA surveillance is constitutional. They're saying NSA surveillance is too secret for them to be able to rule on, because state secrets privilege.

themartorana 12y ago
Right. You can't establish that you were harmed, but the easily obtainable evidence you should be able to present in discovery is classified. I know it exists, you know it exists, but State Secrets, so no.
disposition2 12y ago
The problem of course being the national security exception has been abused since its inception, and since its inception we've only seen an expansion on its use as well as an expansion on the rights abused with its use. I understand the need for actual national security and not divulging details about certain actions but when half the time the exception is used to save face the court should consider stepping into the realm of reality rather than just trusting that the government isn't just trying to once again save face / hide the abuse of rights.

diafygi 12y ago

Firstly, https://eff.org/donate https://eff.org/donate Secondly, from the judgment[1]: Based on the public record, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish a sufficient factual basis to find they have standing to sue under the Fourth Amendment regarding the possible interception of their Internet communications. Another day, another ruling that we can't prove we are spied on. Whenever you can get the authority to rule on the actual program's legality, it's ruled illegal[2]. Thirdly, from the judgment: Further, having reviewed the Government Defendants’ classified submissions, the Court finds that the Claim must be dismissed because even if Plaintiffs could establish standing, a potential Fourth Amendment Claim would have to be dismissed on the basis that any possible defenses would require disclosure of state secret information. This is the surprising part. How in the hell can a federal law trump the Constitution? This part of the ruling sets the precedent that the Executive can violate the Constitutional rights of anyone, including other branches of government (including the Judiciary itself!), and get away with it if the program is a state secret, even if you have evidence of the violation. This is very clear and firm loss of power of the Judiciary and Legislative branches. Why is the Judiciary rolling over like this? The rule of law is being systematically shut down all around them, and they are just sitting there making themselves obsolete. The reason we have three branches of government that are adversarial is so that when one starts to grab for power, the others shut it down. Unchallengable Constitutional violations is exactly the kind of power grab that the Judiciary is supposed to shut down. Fourthly: https://eff.org/donate https://eff.org/donate EDIT: Okay, after having read the full judgment, the very strange thing about it is that the can't-sue-even-if-have-standing claim is almost entirely without references. The standing section has tons of references to prior case law. But the state secrets section has very few citations and and is quite a bit of "grave damage to national security" talk without citation. --- [1]: https://ia801403.us.archive.org/22/items/gov.uscourts.cand.207206/gov.uscourts.cand.207206.321.0.pdf https://ia801403.us.archive.org/22/items/gov.uscourts.cand.2... [2]: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/world/europe/electronic-surveillance-by-spy-agencies-was-illegal-british-court-says.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/world/europe/electronic-su...

toufka 12y ago
Deliberately teeing up for the appellate court? From the judge's perspective, ruling against the government at this stage in the case is very dangerous - but making a ruling like this gets it off his plate and up the food chain (where it would go anyway). And in this way it gets up there quicker.

ancap 12y ago

Big surprise. The government rules in favor of the government. Separation of powers is a myth.

zmanian 12y ago
The government isn't a unified entity. It's worth watching what arms of the government and governmental elites cooperate with the totalitarian surveillance regime and what arms defect.
- jnbiche 12y ago
  So what arms are defecting?
- hitchhiker999 12y ago
  Are you kidding? Yes it's a unified entity. I will chop off a leg if a government 'arm' defects. Go back to sleep America, everything is under control.

eyeareque 12y ago

I wonder how many secret meetings the judge had with the NSA to come up with this expected ruling.

300bps 12y ago
This is just one of the biggest dangers of having an agency that spies on everyone with impunity. Limitless blackmail capability could make almost anyone conform to their will.
- eyeareque 12y ago
  I think the NSA down voted me. And I totally agree with your statement.

vonklaus 12y ago

Absolutely comical. White argued the plaintiffs didn't have enough information about the program to sue. Ahhhh, the ol' you don't know enough about our highly and intentionally secret program to make a case against it...

tmaly 12y ago

I thought the constitution was suppose to trump other laws. Is this state secrets law a new amendment I missed?

coldcode 12y ago
Only the Supreme Court can effectively decide such a thing. While tragic in some ways, at the level of this judge he is to small potatoes to deal with a major constitutional issue. Of course I doubt the Supremes want to touch this either.
Slartibreakfast 12y ago
The next thing you know, we'll have a Secret Court. Oh, wait.
- eternalban 12y ago
  Actually the next thing is people like us getting rounded up ..

rasz_pl 12y ago

We need a brave insider leak some private data obtained using one of NSA programs of _every single federal judge_. Something simple, like one full recording of a phone call/private email per judge/judges spouse. Snowden showed that every analyst can just log in and get at this shit with no checks, no warrants, no supervision. Somehow people in power still think they are above the rest.

hammock 12y ago
Maybe they are doing that now, just blackmailing the judges with it