The idea that the government can enact laws which allow them to create secret programs/law, then allow the justice system to secretly rule on the laws is monstrous.
It's as if the government can only audit itself, not external entity (the populous for example) can not review their practices. Even if this judge ruled this way, the judge above can simply overturn it.
To be honest, I am against ever striking, forming/joining a union, or ever going to a rally. I feel strongly about things, share my thoughts and hope someone listens (and obviously vote), but I think this is the most ashamed I have ever been at being a citizen of a country or a human being in general. This is the only judge that has ruled this way, and I have seen plenty of other cases where the judge ruled in the opposing direction. For the first time I feel going out and protesting may be the only option (especially if this ruling is overturned).
--To be honest, I am against ever striking, forming/joining a union, or ever going to a rally.
Aside, but why? I am too lazy to do such things myself, and I know many who don't see the need as things are good enough as they are from their perspective, but i think this is the first time i have seen an 'ideological' opposition to striking, unions, or rallying.
The problem may be that this ruling could be taken as having set a precedent. IANAL, but I do know that judicial precedents are huge in the legal system, and can be the basis for years of subsequent rulings.
Preaching to the choir, but this is why whistle blowers are especially important;
The ruling rejected the state-secrets argument. “Given
the multiple public disclosures of information regarding
the surveillance program, the court does not find that the
very subject matter of the suits constitutes a state
secret,” Judge Jeffrey White wrote in the ruling.
Everyone "knew" the NSA was wiretapping everything, but until Snowden leaked the docs, lawsuits like this were regularly shut down under 'state secret' doctrine. I don't exactly have high hopes for how it will turn out, but at least now perhaps we'll one day see Robert's tortured reasoning for why he let this happen.
If this holds, it could be a key ruling. The government's assertions of the need for secrecy as a matter of national security in virtually everything have essentially given it carte blanche to do as it pleases AND without true oversight.
A de facto surveillance state is created simply by the networking together of the companies which give you internet service, search service, serve all your pages, connect your VOIP calls, handle your transactions, analyse your purchases, collect health information on you, etc. And trade all your data among themselves freely. And startups are in the vanguard of all this data collection.
We lost when we allowed all this data to be concentrated together in this way. We let it happen because it was done by private industry rather than the government, which we wouldn't have stood for. After we let that happen, government access to this data (by subpoena if nothing else) was a given. But even if we somehow forbade the government from using it tomorrow, it would still be accessible to these corporations and their political allies, with even less transparency and less accountability.
The public doesn't know what private corporations are doing, because there is no transparency. If the public knew, it wouldn't care what they are doing, because they are understood to have carte blanche under capitalism. Corporate obligations are supposedly exhausted by making profit or looking out for stockholders. And even if the public cared about corporate surveillance, there is really nothing they could do about it, because the corporation has a 'right' to do almost whatever it wants as long as it has a strong income stream.
If you care about the surveillance and its abuse in itself, you have to go much deeper than sanctioning the NSA.
The state secrets defense isn't all that common. It's usually used to keep weapons programs and the like secret, where we don't want to reveal the extent of our military capabilities.
National security things don't get litigated that often more because nobody has standing.
I'm not going to hold my breath, but I'm very happy to see some inkling that the Constitution has not been all but completely flushed down the crapper by this and the previous administration.
Any opinions on Rand Paul? I hear a lot of talk, but I'm not seeing any action.
Well, since you asked.. he unfortunately holds a lot of the more distasteful stances that Ron does (in short, tyranny and rights violations is okay if exercised at the state, rather than federal level)
This is why we need to separate the judiciary from the government or any politics whatsoever.
I am not so confident that the supreme court would find the same ruling since the president have the power to nominate the justices. I find US practice of the Senate questioning the nominee's ideology awkward.
Justices need to have permanent tenure to prevent political influences to affect their decisions.
This handing was handed down by a federal district court. The judges on that court are appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and serve for life. Moreover, the Senate routinely blocks their appointment for political reasons. So what distinguishes them from SCoTUS justices in this sense?
Given how many times I've read here that the US is now a completely repressive, unconstitutional totalitarian state, I should be surprised that the US court which rejected this defense was not hit by a drone strike. That's what happens to anyone who disagrees with the NSA, right?
Perhaps the rejection of the state-secrets defense is really part of some sinister NSA plot.
I think you're missing the point: the metadata alone is an invasion of your privacy.
Something that people don't understand is that metadata is extremely revealing, both in what it tell you about the target's activity (social habits, networks) and how it allows the analyst to build a picture of "what is normal for John Doe".
None of that is the government's business according to our founders, and I'm not keen to give up more of my rights to this administration or the next one.
I guess I'm a stickler, but if you study history enough, you'll be a stickler too.
[+] [-] lettergram|12 years ago|reply
It's as if the government can only audit itself, not external entity (the populous for example) can not review their practices. Even if this judge ruled this way, the judge above can simply overturn it.
To be honest, I am against ever striking, forming/joining a union, or ever going to a rally. I feel strongly about things, share my thoughts and hope someone listens (and obviously vote), but I think this is the most ashamed I have ever been at being a citizen of a country or a human being in general. This is the only judge that has ruled this way, and I have seen plenty of other cases where the judge ruled in the opposing direction. For the first time I feel going out and protesting may be the only option (especially if this ruling is overturned).
[+] [-] apalmer|12 years ago|reply
Aside, but why? I am too lazy to do such things myself, and I know many who don't see the need as things are good enough as they are from their perspective, but i think this is the first time i have seen an 'ideological' opposition to striking, unions, or rallying.
[+] [-] rmrfrmrf|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] area51org|12 years ago|reply
The problem may be that this ruling could be taken as having set a precedent. IANAL, but I do know that judicial precedents are huge in the legal system, and can be the basis for years of subsequent rulings.
[+] [-] zaroth|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unclebucknasty|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pekk|12 years ago|reply
We lost when we allowed all this data to be concentrated together in this way. We let it happen because it was done by private industry rather than the government, which we wouldn't have stood for. After we let that happen, government access to this data (by subpoena if nothing else) was a given. But even if we somehow forbade the government from using it tomorrow, it would still be accessible to these corporations and their political allies, with even less transparency and less accountability.
The public doesn't know what private corporations are doing, because there is no transparency. If the public knew, it wouldn't care what they are doing, because they are understood to have carte blanche under capitalism. Corporate obligations are supposedly exhausted by making profit or looking out for stockholders. And even if the public cared about corporate surveillance, there is really nothing they could do about it, because the corporation has a 'right' to do almost whatever it wants as long as it has a strong income stream.
If you care about the surveillance and its abuse in itself, you have to go much deeper than sanctioning the NSA.
[+] [-] rayiner|12 years ago|reply
National security things don't get litigated that often more because nobody has standing.
[+] [-] apalmer|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fixxer|12 years ago|reply
Any opinions on Rand Paul? I hear a lot of talk, but I'm not seeing any action.
[+] [-] Karunamon|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seferphier|12 years ago|reply
This is why we need to separate the judiciary from the government or any politics whatsoever.
I am not so confident that the supreme court would find the same ruling since the president have the power to nominate the justices. I find US practice of the Senate questioning the nominee's ideology awkward.
Justices need to have permanent tenure to prevent political influences to affect their decisions.
[+] [-] hypersoar|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mratzloff|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pekk|12 years ago|reply
Perhaps the rejection of the state-secrets defense is really part of some sinister NSA plot.
[+] [-] trestles|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fixxer|12 years ago|reply
Something that people don't understand is that metadata is extremely revealing, both in what it tell you about the target's activity (social habits, networks) and how it allows the analyst to build a picture of "what is normal for John Doe".
None of that is the government's business according to our founders, and I'm not keen to give up more of my rights to this administration or the next one.
I guess I'm a stickler, but if you study history enough, you'll be a stickler too.
[+] [-] cypherpunks01|12 years ago|reply