5 ms·
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 suf
by 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 agoNot 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 agoFor 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 agoI 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 agoHow do you decide what organizations get that special privilege?