3 ms·
Despite what they say in the article, I really don't think they have standing. But I would love to hear why they do from someone familiar with the legal argumen
by motbob 12y ago
Despite what they say in the article, I really don't think they have standing. But I would love to hear why they do from someone familiar with the legal argument.
- unreal37 12y agoI thought that too at first. But the NYT op-ed does a better job of explaining.[1] Basically, they think that the NSA has the ability to index anonymous readers with pages visited, and anonymous editors with pages changed. Then if the NSA is sending that data to a bunch of governments around the word (Egypt, Israel, the Five Eyes, whoever else), dissidents around the world are at risk of being caught for browsing/editing Wikipedia for the crime of being opposed to the government in power. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/opinion/stop-spying-on-wikipedia-users.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/opinion/stop-spying-on-wik...
- motbob 12y agoI see. I thought it might be impossible for any U.S. entity to ever get standing in a lawsuit against the NSA, but this theory might have a fair shot.
- flyryan 12y ago"Then if the NSA" That's a big IF and one that will be almost impossible to prove. I don't see how the case holds any merit if they can't prove this happens.
- unreal37 12y agoSeems like a hard battle for sure.