4 ms·

The actual judgment: http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/NSA_ca2_20150507.pdf http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/NSA_ca2_20150507.pdf From the ruling: > Because we fin

by diafygi 11y ago

The actual judgment: http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/NSA_ca2_20150507.pdf http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/NSA_ca2_20150507.pdf From the ruling: > Because we find that the program exceeds the scope of what Congress has authorized, we vacate the decision below dismissing the complaint without reaching appellants’ constitutional arguments. It appears that the government is starting to lose the ability to always dismiss constitutional rights abused on "state secrets" grounds. Which is great! Finally, we can actually start to hear the real legal justifications for these mass surveillance programs and watch them start to crumble when they are put forward in a adversarial court. However, organizations like the ACLU and the EFF need funding to be able to dismantle these illegal programs. I recommend signing up for a monthly recurring donation of $19.84. https://www.aclu.org/donate/ https://www.aclu.org/donate/ Also, this will give significant weight to the Fight 215 coalition (https://fight215.org https://fight215.org), which this ruling is directly related to.

Istof 11y ago
How do you explain this from a few days ago: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/one-of-the-biggest-privacy-wins-in-recent-memory-has-been-reversed http://motherboard.vice.com/read/one-of-the-biggest-privacy-... ?
- schoen 11y ago
  There was no state secrets assertion in that case and the court decided it on constitutional grounds (under which the government won) rather than statutory grounds (like here, under which the government lost). Davis: there's no fourth amendment obstacle to the government getting cellphone location data (of particular people) Clapper: the government's interpretation of part of the Patriot Act's supposedly allowing it to easily get everyone's phone calling records is mistaken I guess the fact that Davis undermines our privacy rights and Clapper protects them might seem incongruous if you expect a nationwide trend of all Federal courts either protecting or failing to protect privacy. But these were two different courts in different parts of the country applying different legal theories to different legal questions, not just something like "is privacy good?" or "is government surveillance out of control/sketchy/terrifying?".
coldpie 11y ago
It's important to stress the usefulness of monthly donations, as opposed to single donations, even large ones. Monthly donations let organizations like the ACLU and the EFF plan for the future based on a reliable source of income, instead of individual donations which can be peaky.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  What are the laws governing endowments? Could an organization fund itself indefinitely based on interest on an endowment assembled from millions of small one-time donations, or are there taxes or other rules that would eat away the endowment?
hackuser 11y ago
> It appears that the government is starting to lose the ability to always dismiss constitutional rights ... The text you quoted said dismissing the complaint without reaching appellants' constitutional arguments. > organizations like the ACLU and the EFF need funding Serious question: Do the ACLU and EFF profile their donors by collecting information from and reporting it to third parties? It's my understanding that the practice is widespread in the fund-raising business, and I read many years ago that the ACLU participated. EDIT: I want to clarify, because some people are responding regarding web trackers. Those are a concern, but I'm talking about something else: Obtaining, from third-party data aggregators, profiles of donors: How much they make, their mortgage, what they read -- all the data that's collected about private citizens -- and using it to target their fundraising.
- zmanian 11y ago
  EFF uses extensive technical and policy measures to protect member privacy. They also require the similar measures when they partner with other orgs on campaigns. https://www.eff.org/policy https://www.eff.org/policy
- count 11y ago
  Metadata collection is only bad when it's the Government doing it! FWIW: I've not received anything but EFF-related spam from EFF to the email address I used to donate to them back in the day. Not sure about ACLU.
  - teacup50 11y ago
    Of course, collecting metadata -- especially via centralized services like Google Analytics -- means you're creating a very tempting trove of information for both the government and private entities that may make use of it to your users' disadvantage.
  - nickbauman 11y ago
    Governments can use force on those they track. Corporations can't yet (they're working on that).
Balgair 11y ago
https://supporters.eff.org/donate https://supporters.eff.org/donate
CWuestefeld 11y ago
the government is starting to lose the ability to always dismiss constitutional rights abused on "state secrets" grounds I don't think the decision says that. It looks to me like the decision is fairly limited. All it says is that "you're saying that USAPATRIOT lets you capture bulk metadata, but it doesn't; the government's own reading of the legislation is wrong". That doesn't go as far as saying that the gov't cannot hide behind state secrets in other cases. Further, it's now imperative that section 215 not be renewed. The foundation of this decision is that the mass surveillance can't be considered to have been approved by Congress, because many of them (not to mention all of us) weren't aware of the program. But now that Congress is aware of it, any renewal would imply that they condone the program, and thus that they believe it should be allowed to continue. Under those conditions, this decision would no longer be applicable, and we'd have to get a SCOTUS decision on the overall constitutionality, which is going to be much more difficult (although I think that in the big picture, that's the right answer).

by diafygi 11y ago

Istof 11y ago

How do you explain this from a few days ago: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/one-of-the-biggest-privacy-wins-in-recent-memory-has-been-reversed http://motherboard.vice.com/read/one-of-the-biggest-privacy-... ?

schoen 11y ago
There was no state secrets assertion in that case and the court decided it on constitutional grounds (under which the government won) rather than statutory grounds (like here, under which the government lost). Davis: there's no fourth amendment obstacle to the government getting cellphone location data (of particular people) Clapper: the government's interpretation of part of the Patriot Act's supposedly allowing it to easily get everyone's phone calling records is mistaken I guess the fact that Davis undermines our privacy rights and Clapper protects them might seem incongruous if you expect a nationwide trend of all Federal courts either protecting or failing to protect privacy. But these were two different courts in different parts of the country applying different legal theories to different legal questions, not just something like "is privacy good?" or "is government surveillance out of control/sketchy/terrifying?".

coldpie 11y ago

It's important to stress the usefulness of monthly donations, as opposed to single donations, even large ones. Monthly donations let organizations like the ACLU and the EFF plan for the future based on a reliable source of income, instead of individual donations which can be peaky.

nitrogen 11y ago
What are the laws governing endowments? Could an organization fund itself indefinitely based on interest on an endowment assembled from millions of small one-time donations, or are there taxes or other rules that would eat away the endowment?

hackuser 11y ago

> It appears that the government is starting to lose the ability to always dismiss constitutional rights ... The text you quoted said dismissing the complaint without reaching appellants' constitutional arguments. > organizations like the ACLU and the EFF need funding Serious question: Do the ACLU and EFF profile their donors by collecting information from and reporting it to third parties? It's my understanding that the practice is widespread in the fund-raising business, and I read many years ago that the ACLU participated. EDIT: I want to clarify, because some people are responding regarding web trackers. Those are a concern, but I'm talking about something else: Obtaining, from third-party data aggregators, profiles of donors: How much they make, their mortgage, what they read -- all the data that's collected about private citizens -- and using it to target their fundraising.

zmanian 11y ago
EFF uses extensive technical and policy measures to protect member privacy. They also require the similar measures when they partner with other orgs on campaigns. https://www.eff.org/policy https://www.eff.org/policy
count 11y ago
Metadata collection is only bad when it's the Government doing it! FWIW: I've not received anything but EFF-related spam from EFF to the email address I used to donate to them back in the day. Not sure about ACLU.
- teacup50 11y ago
  Of course, collecting metadata -- especially via centralized services like Google Analytics -- means you're creating a very tempting trove of information for both the government and private entities that may make use of it to your users' disadvantage.
- nickbauman 11y ago
  Governments can use force on those they track. Corporations can't yet (they're working on that).

Balgair 11y ago

https://supporters.eff.org/donate https://supporters.eff.org/donate

CWuestefeld 11y ago

the government is starting to lose the ability to always dismiss constitutional rights abused on "state secrets" grounds I don't think the decision says that. It looks to me like the decision is fairly limited. All it says is that "you're saying that USAPATRIOT lets you capture bulk metadata, but it doesn't; the government's own reading of the legislation is wrong". That doesn't go as far as saying that the gov't cannot hide behind state secrets in other cases. Further, it's now imperative that section 215 not be renewed. The foundation of this decision is that the mass surveillance can't be considered to have been approved by Congress, because many of them (not to mention all of us) weren't aware of the program. But now that Congress is aware of it, any renewal would imply that they condone the program, and thus that they believe it should be allowed to continue. Under those conditions, this decision would no longer be applicable, and we'd have to get a SCOTUS decision on the overall constitutionality, which is going to be much more difficult (although I think that in the big picture, that's the right answer).