The 5 Cases That Could Pit the Supreme Court Against the NSA 114
An anonymous reader writes: We've all been wondering how the U.S. Judicial branch will deal with the NSA's bulk metadata surveillance. Getting a case to the Supreme Court isn't a quick process, so we haven't seen much movement yet. But later this year, several cases have the potential to force a Supreme Court ruling on the NSA, whether they like it or not. Ars summarizes the five likeliest cases, and provides estimates on their timelines. For example, Klayman v. Obama was one of the first lawsuits filed after the Snowden leaks were published. The first judge to hear it actually ordered the government to halt the metadata program and destroy all data, but stayed his own order pending appeal. The case is now awaiting a decision from the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, and several other high-profile lawsuits are awaiting its outcome. The decision in Klayman will have a domino effect on NSA-related court battles across the country.
could-a (Score:2)
Re:could-a wonka wonka (Score:4)
I am Sam. Uncle Sam I am.
That Uncle Sam, that Uncle Sam, I do not trust that Uncle Sam.
Do you like backbone voice/data taps and bulk retention?
I do not like them, Uncle Sam. They're just tools for blackmail, thugs and future despots. They am.
Would you like them here or there?
What bullshit, Sam. You put them everywhere.
Would you like it bound by Charter? Can I promise to do no evil? Tartar?
We tried that, Sam. The old folks have retired and it's run by young sociopaths who don't see anything wrong with even tapping their own poor children. They're smart-stupids, blinded by the buck and the tech, they do not realize what a sorry-ass country this could become WHEN that stuff falls in the wrong hands.
Then introduce a bill into the House. Ask your senator, man... or mouse?
Mumble National Security mumble, they say. I think they are under blackmail, today.
Then will you, won't you, take it to the Judge? [wink]
We did, in Hepting vs. AT&T [wikipedia.org]. The only case that would have exposed, in the discovery process, the true extent of domestic telecom surveillance. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the case by citing a law that was enacted AFTER the case was filed. The Supreme Court refused to hear it. Miscarriage of justice, much?
Your bitter phrases take lots of time, you cannot even make them rhyme.
That's because I trying to communicate something REAL, asshole.
Should I put NSA in a box?
Guard the hen house with a fox?
You mean, appoint a Director that goes before Congress under oath, pretends to know nothing and needs both hands to find his ass in the dark?? We've tried that too. I thought it was unlawful to lie to Congress, guess not.
Would you like it on a boat? Would you like it with a goat?
That's the kind of transparent childish misdirection we've come to expect from you people. Like that stupid false metadata conundrum, a limited hang-out where you 'pretend' to relinquish voluntary data sharing agreements, and fill everyone's ears with talk of metadata. When all the while the backbone taps ensure you will obtain all that by other means, and more besides.
You do not like Big Brother, so you say,
Try it! Try it! And you may.
Fuck off.
It's been tried, Stalin would be proud of what we have built already. The TRUE extent of our domestic spy apparatus is, by now, probably hidden and partitioned into layers. The folks who built it out knew full well it would not pass Constitutional muster, and so they have probably created a series of interlocking pieces and black-funded faux-telecom 'private' companies that have title of the 'assets'. It may require a massive de-funding and deconstruction effort, and the sociopaths that have built this thing may 'turn turtle' and put their legs in the air... but that will NOT be enough. We're back to Hepting vs. AT&T again, it is the private telecommunications technicians that must come forward en masse and help identify these interconnect points.
I wish I could trust you, Uncle Sam
Can I interest you in some... spam?
Re: (Score:2)
Whether the SCOTUS "likes it or not"? Does one really think that the majority of the court would be uncomfortable or somehow put out with substantiating the gov't's abuses of power? The only party likely to be uncomfortable with these court cases is the small percentage of regular folks who pay attention to and care about these issues when they see the SCOTUS rule in favor of spy
Re: (Score:3)
Still waiting for that nuclear attack.
A wish from an American (Score:5, Insightful)
As an American of course I wish that the SCOTUS would honor the very spirit that makes the USA special - in which, the government should never have given any power to intrude on the citizens' rights
But then, as a person who knows what the United States of America has turned into ... I ain't gonna be holding my breath
Them SCOTUS people are as corrupt as the rest --- and to think the NSA (and those powerful god-like beings who holds control over spook agencies such as NSA) don't already have influences over the SCOTUS judges is to deny the reality
Re: (Score:2)
How will they be seen by domestic and international users, the paying public and developers?
Will generations of new products just route around the NSL issues and collect it all domestic spying programs?
What are the big brands options?
To be seen as front companies for the security services of a few different nations? Tame networks an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You'll find no individuals with huge powers any more. Just like all police states, it is all about the temporary collusion of corrupt psychopaths, all seeking more of everything and each of them considering each other the greatest threat. The heads of the police in a police state always turn their power against those who gave it to them, to make sure they can no longer take it away. Be sure there is plenty of criminal stuff on the very rich to extort them with. No different to the rich in nazi germany, the
Re: A wish from an American (Score:4, Informative)
Snowden is a Hero
Re:A wish from an American (Score:5, Insightful)
"Well, Mr. Justice, it appears from the following web searches you made over the last eight months that you like chicks with dicks. Now you can either rule for the the Government, or the Wall Street Journal gets a hot new exclusive..."
Re:A wish from an American (Score:5, Insightful)
"Well, Mr. Justice, it appears from the following web searches you made over the last eight months that you like chicks with dicks. Now you can either rule for the the Government, or the Wall Street Journal gets a hot new exclusive..."
That's way too tame. This is the way I'd envision the conversation.
"Well, Mr. Justice, we have the videotapes of your sexual harassment campaign against your subordinates, we have the books that prove all the fraud you and your wife committed in real estate, and we have the remote kill-switch to your pacemaker. Why do you think you got the job? You would obviously never had gotten the job if we had no leverage against you.
Please just wait ten years before you shut down the worst of our programs. In ten years time, we'll be using new technology, new loopholes, and new programs, that even Snowden doesn't know about. "
Re: (Score:1)
http://arstechnica.com/securit... [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Well, Mr. Justice, it appears from the following web searches you made over the last eight months that you like chicks with dicks. Now you can either rule for the the Government, or the Wall Street Journal gets a hot new exclusive..."
Funny that your post includes the word "dick," because that is what you have for proof that has gone on.
You're writing fiction in which the "seriousness" of the "charge" is its own "evidence." You might as well claim that you have proof that every judge on the Supreme Court has sold their soul to the Devil to be appointed to the court. And spare me the "before Snowden" routine on this one since that is bull in this case.
There is equal proof that you are the FSB agent that recruited Snowden as a Russian ag
Re: (Score:2)
Because a spy agency given carte blanche to spy on the citizens it claims to protect would never use those powers and the information derived to maintain its position.
It's like J. Edgar Hoover never existed in your world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
True, they leave the arresting, torture, and illegal imprisonment to others, but the NSA does monitor and collect private communications of US citizens without warrants. All of this behavior IS illegal, or was, originally. If it's not now, then those who passed the new laws circumventing constitutional protections are the traitors who should be shot. This puts snowden into patriot territory.
You don't like it when others with stricter interpretations of the constitution express themselves (nevermind pass l
Re: A wish from an American (Score:2, Troll)
you seem to want to ignore that part. Why?
here is a simple question. I grant you that he is a whistle blower. Personally, I am thankful for the first part. Had the neo-cons controlled 2004 committe not weakened oversight, than the current issue on american spying never would have happened. But let assume the he goes out and shoot
Re: A wish from an American (Score:5, Insightful)
1. yes they are supposed to spy outside the nation's borders, not on citizens. By doing so, we do what the terrorists want to do: destroy our liberties. Who was snowden supposed to tell? The only leverage over the washington crowd is public shame. Snowden was a response to their deplorable behavior. They created snowden.
2. If al quada is a threat, congress should declare war on the nations supporting it, and we hurl cruise missiles at them until they stop attacking us. If they are not threats, then we shouldn't be there. We don't win freedom by compromising citizens rights at home.
Re: (Score:1)
1. yes they are supposed to spy outside the nation's borders, not on citizens.
Spying on another nation is an act of war and NSA doesn't have the mandate to declare war on other nations.
NSA is supposed to keep the nation secure, not spy.
Re: (Score:1)
"Spying on another nation is an act of war." How did you make that up?
Re: A wish from an American (Score:2)
In addition, NSA has nothing to do with cia or dod abuse of POWs. That is a whole other issue.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true, but the NSA is still involved in illegal wiretapping. They compromise systems and give the info to the state. We put regular people in jail for 99 years for the same offense. Compare this to 5 years for murder. I don't see how this is any different. The abuse of the information comes from other agencies too used to having unchecked power.
Re: (Score:2)
America and UK have no rights to go after him, other then to deliver him to Sweden or Australia. Beyond that, the man, was not an American or Brit and therefore he has committed no crime against us.
OTOH, sweden wants him, and I suspect that Australia really does want him as well.
But, I despise the idea that America has ANY RIGHTS to go after him.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they keep a blackmail file...
Re: (Score:2)
NSA holds no power, other than to control what is shown above. They can not arrest anybody.
The NSA is a cog in a huge machine that includes numerous law enforcement agencies. The power of arrest is there.
Re: (Score:2)
What they CAN do, is pass CURRENT information up the ladder. That is it. They have no other real capabilities.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong Kevin, The NSA has no ability to walk into your home and arrest you. They do not have the authority to simply turn over data to the FBI, and have you arrested. What they CAN do, is pass CURRENT information up the ladder. That is it. They have no other real capabilities.
What makes it wrong? Legal obstructions like this only matter when the law is enforced. The NSA may not have the "authority", but it definitely has the power to do just that.
Re: (Score:2)
The Authors did the majority of their initial political work under pseudonyms, because anonymity was the only way that they could protect themselves. Pretty sure they'd disagree with you.
http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistor... [ou.edu]
The Freedom to speak without fear of persecution is the cornerstone of our Bill of Rights and was absolutely necessary for the Founding of our Nation.
Klayman (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Klayman (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd feel a lot better about this case if the plaintiff (Klayman) weren't proceeding pro se and actually had a lawyer who knew how to argue a case instead of using his pleadings as a political soap box.
The American justice system has been co-opted by lawyers who've constructed a labyrinthine system of rules meant to enrich themselves by wresting control from the common man and forcing the use of their services. It shouldn't be necessary to avail oneself of legal aid to pursue civil torts. His choice to do this himself is in itself a protest of the horrible state of affairs in American courtrooms.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
It shouldn't be necessary to avail oneself of legal aid to pursue civil torts.
It shouldn't, but it is, and there's no way the Roberts court will change that.
His choice to do this himself is in itself a protest of the horrible state of affairs in American courtrooms.
A person representing himself has a fool for a client.
There are very good reasons never to represent yourself, even if you are a lawyer. The Fifth Amendment is one.
Re: (Score:3)
having served on juries and heard how people try to argue their case in something minor like a speeding ticket, there is a good reason for lawyers. most people will come into court spouting some nonsense that doesn't make sense or doesn't follow the law.
Re: (Score:2)
having served on juries and heard how people try to argue their case in something minor like a speeding ticket, there is a good reason for lawyers. most people will come into court spouting some nonsense that doesn't make sense or doesn't follow the law.
I like
"... were you speeding?"
"Well yah, but ..."
DONE
Re:Klayman (Score:5, Informative)
I'd feel a lot better about this case if the plaintiff (Klayman) weren't proceeding pro se and actually had a lawyer who knew how to argue a case instead of using his pleadings as a political soap box.
The American justice system has been co-opted by lawyers who've constructed a labyrinthine system of rules meant to enrich themselves by wresting control from the common man and forcing the use of their services. It shouldn't be necessary to avail oneself of legal aid to pursue civil torts. His choice to do this himself is in itself a protest of the horrible state of affairs in American courtrooms.
It shouldn't be necessary to hire a plumber to hook up a dishwasher, or hire an electrician to wire an extra circuit. I am a licensed professional engineer with a strong background in piping and electrical. I can do both tasks easilly, and understand the theory of each. When the building inspector comes around though, I would be biting my nails. Only someone who does a trade or profession for a living every day has a hope of knowing all the little rules, tricks, and pitfalls.
It's fine to have a law enthusiast represent themselves when it is their own skin on the line. Not so good when they will be arguing a case that may well be the legal precedent for the next 100 years. The only saving grace is that if he does get to the Supreme Court, the justices generally do a good job of making all the arguments themselves and just use the lawyers as their pawns to advance their preconceived talking points.
Re: (Score:1)
True, I haven't, because I know what I'm doing, and, more importantly, I know when I don't, and look up the information I need, or have someone else do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
A fringe case is exactly the case where the law may not apply, or need a different application (or even a redefinition). Just handling things a certain way because that's how it's been done for X amount of time is what's insane. It's bad enough we have so much 'activism' in legal circles now. I realize precedent has the potential to limit said capriciousness, but with enough activism, the precedents may actually change, reenforcing the stupidity because no amount of logic or reason from a few dissenters c
Re: (Score:2)
No, those rules and 'pitfalls' exist to protect the people around you from idiots like you - because unlike the grandparent you fail to grasp the difference
Re: (Score:2)
I admire your preternatural knowledge of me. How did you get it? I never claimed that knowledge = ability.
If the law was sane to begin with, and cases were weighted on their own merits, lawyers wouldn't need precedent to do the thinking for them.
Re: (Score:2)
I admire your preternatural knowledge of me.
"Evidence" in a single other word.
If the law was sane to begin with, and cases were weighted on their own merits, lawyers wouldn't need precedent to do the thinking for them.
Oh look, more "preternatural" evidence. Even when the law is "sane", you can have variation just due to how the court interprets the law. Please remember that laws which can only be interpreted in one unique way are "imaginary" not "sane".
Re: (Score:3)
It shouldn't be necessary to hire a plumber to hook up a dishwasher, or hire an electrician to wire an extra circuit. I am a licensed professional engineer with a strong background in piping and electrical. I can do both tasks easilly, and understand the theory of each. When the building inspector comes around though, I would be biting my nails. Only someone who does a trade or profession for a living every day has a hope of knowing all the little rules, tricks, and pitfalls.
The problem is that I wouldn't want to be the co-occupant, tenant, sleepover guest, new owner, home insurance company, in a different apartment or chained building of someone playing electrician and plumber, if you die in a fire of your own making I don't really care but if you're going to burn down the whole house with me in it then it matters. Every so often we get media examples of people doing home renovation not just in violation of code and regulation but sanity and safety. And the problem is often in
Re: (Score:2)
Klayman is a lawyer. A remarkably inept one (he gets an astonishing number of cases thrown out on grounds that most non-lawyers spot immediately.) You can look up one of his other cases recently in the news where he is representing Arizona's Sheriff Joe Arpaio in a (dismissed, standing) case against President Obama's executive orders on immigration.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, so... (Score:1)
They actually get it into the supreme court. Prove that the US is run by corporate Nazi's and Roman Catholic driven first world government mob.
Unified response of the corporate run Nazi's and Roman Catholic driven first world government mob: What are ya going to do about it?
The people: "But Rome and Hitler fell and the same is happening here with the militarization of local governments driving them bankrupt and fleecing an already broke people?"
Unified response of the corporate run Nazi's and Roman Catho
Re: (Score:2)
Domestic and other users can then route around that issue. Another issue to consider when upgrading or buying the next generation of networking products and services.
Re: (Score:1)
The way these idiots are printing and spending money to fight a war against an idealism which is not a sovereign country that I'm aware of, we the people will be lucky to have running water and a working shitter let alone gasoline or internet in 20 years.
First words all newborns should hear; "Sorry, your country fucked you, (for life sucker).
SCOTUS can't be forced to rule on anything (Score:2, Informative)
The US Supreme Court can choose to accept or reject any case assigned to it and, historically, tends to take a minimalist approach. These cases are of the sort that the court will accept, but it is unwise to assume that any decision will resolve root issues. Many are remanded to the appeals court for further review and many are decided on very narrow grounds.
A SCOTUS ruling can have very broad and sometimes unexpected impact and the court seems to follow the medical credo... "First, do no harm". Every judge
Re: (Score:2)
Your high-school civics book is out of date. Two words: "Ciizens United."
Re: (Score:2)
It's not SOTUS's fault most medical textbooks omit the last four words!
Re: (Score:2)
Your high-school civics book is out of date. Two words: "Ciizens United."
You don't seem to provide any demonstration of actual harm in those two words although the POTUS did try to intimidate and threaten the SCOTUS over it. That risks damage to more than one institution.
Re: (Score:1)
Citizens United did harm in that it set up 2 classes of voters.
One, "people" people, who can only vote for themselves.
The other, "corporate people" who, while unable to vote ....
So it really didn't change anything in regard to voting. It is still "one man, one vote," and corporations still don't get a vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get your hopes up. (Score:2)
Bush v Gore
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Citizens United
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Heien v North Carolina (you got to read this one)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And so on...
Re: (Score:3)
In Helen, the state law required that all "originally equipped rear lamps [be] in good working order" . The officer saw that the rear brake light was not in working order. Your contention is that it was unconstitutionally unreasonable to make the traffic stop, because a year later an appeals court might decide that "all originally equipped rear lamps" means only tail lights, not brake lights?
In Bush v Gore, the court declined to force a state to hand-pick different voting standards for different precincts
Re: (Score:2)
Your contention is that it was unconstitutionally unreasonable to make the traffic stop
I never said that.
Are you of the opinion
I'm of the opinion Bush was the worst thing that ever happened to this country, until Obama came along of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Find the alternate universe where Gore won and tell me how that turned out. I would be hard pressed to say we've ever had a good president. (Historically, we've had some really entertaining ones, but "good"???)
Re: (Score:2)
We will never know, but we can say Bush was one of the worst if not THE worst (prior to Obama)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm of the opinion Bush was the worst thing that ever happened to this country, until Obama came along of course.
I would attribute that to inadequate familiarity with the subject area.
Re: (Score:1)
I would attribute that to inadequate familiarity with the subject area.
Because you have a historical view, you can't see what's happening to you in this time, the things that happened under Bush opened a Pandoras box of nastiness for the future.
That won't be obvious for most until quite a few years have passed.
Worst presidents since 1980 (Score:2)
>. I'm of the opinion Bush was the worst thing that ever
> happened to this country, until Obama came along of course.
Worst presidents since 1980, anyway. We've had a lot of bad stuff happen - the depression, the civil war, etc. We've had some pretty crappy presidents in the last 200 years also, and those two were certainly crappy.
>> Your contention is that it was unconstitutionally unreasonable to make the traffic stop
> never said that.
The ruling was that it was NOT so unreasonable as to b
Re: (Score:2)
I thought you indicated that was a horrible ruling.
No I said "don't get your hopes up" that's all I said.
One of the Judges stated
In her dissent, Sotomayor argued that the reasonableness of a search or seizure should instead be determined by evaluating "an officer's understanding of the facts against the actual state of the law."
Others, presumably in the know, have stated this allows a violation of the 4th amendment at anytime by allowing the officer to claim ignorance.
So while the case was minor, the implications of the decision are not.
Of course you would know this if you actually read the wiki, instead of spending your time reading into what I stated, and did your due diligence.
only if their understanding is objectively reasona (Score:2)
The ruling was that because the officer's understanding of the law was reasonable, a stop based on that understanding was reasonable. The law said "all originally installed lights" - that sounds like it includes brake lights. Reading "all originally installed lights", it is reasonable to stop someone whose originally installed lights aren't working, the court ruled.
So they can't "always claim they misunderstood the law", they can do so only if the their understanding of it is the reasonable interpretation
Re: (Score:1)
The real point you should be talking about is how a routine traffic stop made it all the way to the Supreme Court.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com]
lol (Score:2)
That's funny. I pulled up my brother's custom dictionary one time - wow.
Re: (Score:2)
Zombie winger lies:
False. There was only one standard: determine the intent of the voter. Pretending otherwise because Florida had wildly different methods of voting (opscan/punch cards/butterfly) is to be willfully obtuse.
Irrelevant. You
where "press" means your blog (Score:2)
There is no consistent set of rules which result in a Gore win. His camp acknowledged that by insisting on strict rules in conservative precincts and liberal rules in precincts that leaned Democrat. Additionally, you have to ALSO exclude votes from the men and women serving overseas.
If you think you can come up with ANY set of procedures that result in a Gore win when applied consistently, please link to it. You may have seen a Comedy Central sketch which implied otherwise. I can understand you're disa
Re: (Score:2)
More winger urban legends with no basis in reality. No to mention the projection, given the fact that illegally cast overseas ballots were counted, which favored Bush.
not good at linking to your blog, are you? AP, NYT (Score:2)
The most comprehensive recount was a $1 million effort sponsored by the Associated Press, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, St. Petersburg Times, Palm Beach Post, Washington Post and the Tribune Co., which owns papers including the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Orlando Sentinel and Baltimore Sun. That press recount, the big one, found that Bush still won, even without the military votes.
One last time, if you think there was some other recount that found different, LINK TO IT.
There was one we
"my blog" is the study you are citing! (Score:2)
Hoist on your own snobby petard. [washingtonpost.com] The very study you mention is the one showing Gore winning a statewide rec
Re: (Score:1)
The correct answer in Heien is obviously to say "NO" to the f'ing search. If a cop has probable cause (or a warrant), he's not going to ask, he's going to cuff you and search away.
And the interpretation of "one brake light" is news to every single badge in the state. (It's the #1 BS reason to stop someone when fishing.)
Re: (Score:1)
What does that have to do with the Supreme Court decision?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Heien
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.... unless you're a cop.
Re: (Score:1)
Like this?: http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]
President Jackson (Score:2, Insightful)
"Let them enforce it."
SCOTUS can't fix stupid ... (Score:2)
The problem with the NSA is not that it is collecting massive amounts of metadata, capturing phone calls or intercepting Internet activity ... it's that ANYBODY KNOWS ABOUT IT!!!
Same with the FBI and CIA.
America used to have intelligence ... the "intel" kind.
Our secret service got no fucking street cred.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it is A problem, but not THE problem.
Well, one thing's for sure... (Score:2)
...the NSA will know the USSC ruling before they announce it.