4 ms·

Sorry if this is a naive question, but what is a "no standing argument"?

coldcode 12y ago
The legal theory (or practice) that you have to prove you have been personally hurt in order to sue the government. Often the government claims that if you cannot prove you have been personally affected you can't sue, and then uses secrecy laws to ensure you can't prove you have been hurt.
- evgen 12y ago
  It is also used to prevent random serial litigants from clogging up the court system with BS cases. Requiring the plaintiff to show that they have actually suffered harm is not a difficult bar to cross in most cases and the benefits this requirement brings to the legal system as a whole outweigh its inconvenience in cases like this.
  - jsnathan 12y ago
    Not to say that this is not a useful standard, but I do think we are beyond "inconvenience" here. Following the current trajectory, surveillance is only going to grow as technology makes it easier and easier to gather more and more information without being noticed.
    - happyscrappy 12y ago
      For all the handwringing about call records I can't help but think that the NSA has quite a few technologies that would make peoples heads spin. God knows what they have in skunk works.
  - higherpurpose 12y ago
    I know, but I also know judges often rule based on "common sense" and "intent" of harm, regardless of the letter of the law. Surely the fact that documents say that millions of people have been spied upon with such a program means that the judge should allow a case by an organization like EFF or HRW go through, even if the employees of that organization weren't personally affected by it? There should be a "for public interest" clause somewhere, or at least as an unwritten rule.
    - harryh 12y ago
      How do you decide what organizations get that special privilege?
- rayiner 12y ago
  Nit: you have to prove you have been personally hurt to sue anybody. It's a Constitutional perquisite to the federal judiciary's use of power: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_or_Controversy_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_or_Controversy_Clause.
- sitkack 12y ago
  If I were the government, I'd go a step further and throw anyone that could prove they had been harmed in prison for acquiring state secrets. Should make the law suits drop to zero.
  - wavefunction 12y ago
    All that free time, all those prison legal libraries, and now a completely unjust prison term? I know how I'd be spending my time in the clink and it wouldn't be brewing pruno...

The legal theory (or practice) that you have to prove you have been personally hurt in order to sue the government. Often the government claims that if you cannot prove you have been personally affected you can't sue, and then uses secrecy laws to ensure you can't prove you have been hurt.

evgen 12y ago
It is also used to prevent random serial litigants from clogging up the court system with BS cases. Requiring the plaintiff to show that they have actually suffered harm is not a difficult bar to cross in most cases and the benefits this requirement brings to the legal system as a whole outweigh its inconvenience in cases like this.
- jsnathan 12y ago
  Not to say that this is not a useful standard, but I do think we are beyond "inconvenience" here. Following the current trajectory, surveillance is only going to grow as technology makes it easier and easier to gather more and more information without being noticed.
  - happyscrappy 12y ago
    For all the handwringing about call records I can't help but think that the NSA has quite a few technologies that would make peoples heads spin. God knows what they have in skunk works.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  I know, but I also know judges often rule based on "common sense" and "intent" of harm, regardless of the letter of the law. Surely the fact that documents say that millions of people have been spied upon with such a program means that the judge should allow a case by an organization like EFF or HRW go through, even if the employees of that organization weren't personally affected by it? There should be a "for public interest" clause somewhere, or at least as an unwritten rule.
  - harryh 12y ago
    How do you decide what organizations get that special privilege?
rayiner 12y ago
Nit: you have to prove you have been personally hurt to sue anybody. It's a Constitutional perquisite to the federal judiciary's use of power: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_or_Controversy_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_or_Controversy_Clause.
sitkack 12y ago
If I were the government, I'd go a step further and throw anyone that could prove they had been harmed in prison for acquiring state secrets. Should make the law suits drop to zero.
- wavefunction 12y ago
  All that free time, all those prison legal libraries, and now a completely unjust prison term? I know how I'd be spending my time in the clink and it wouldn't be brewing pruno...