EFF brings us Deeper Dive into EFF's Motion on Backbone Surveillance.
[EFF] filed a motion for partial summary judgment in our long running Jewel v. NSA case, focusing on the government's admitted seizure and search of communications from the Internet backbone, also called "upstream." We've asked the judge to rule that there are two ways in which this is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.
Bonus: insightful Infographic
Related Stories
The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled to give Wikimedia a chance to legally challenge the NSA's mass surveillance as being unconstitutional. The government has previously argued that the NSA's Upstream warrantless spying is authorized under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. [...]
The ruling yesterday reversed a lower court's ruling which found Wikimedia, which publishes the internet behemoth Wikipedia, couldn't prove the NSA's "Upstream" surveillance program was secretly monitoring its communications, vacuuming the communications right off the internet backbones – even with leaked Snowden documents showing Wikipedia as an NSA target.
[...] due to the sheer size of Wikimedia, the judges found that the NSA probably had seized at least some of their communications.
—Computerworld (hyperlinks in original)
"Wikimedia has plausibly alleged that its communications travel all of the roads that a communication can take, and that the NSA seizes all of the communications along at least one of those roads," U.S. Circuit Judge Albert Diaz wrote. "Thus, at least at this stage of the litigation, Wikimedia has standing to sue for a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And, because Wikimedia has self-censored its speech and sometimes forgone electronic communications in response to Upstream surveillance, it also has standing to sue for a violation of the First Amendment."
Further reading:
Wikipedia article on Upstream
Wikipedia article on Albert Diaz
(Score: 4, Insightful) by physicsmajor on Tuesday July 29 2014, @03:06AM
Great infographic. The EFF continues to make excellent use of my and everyone else's contributions.
This Constitutional challenge must succeed, or that document ceases to have meaning - and with it also goes the Federal government's legitimacy. Alternatively, we can start down the long, difficult, and right path of dismantling these blatant overreaches.
(Score: 1) by frojack on Tuesday July 29 2014, @03:47AM
We will never succeed at dismantling any significant part of this until people go to jail.
And that won't happen with his administration in power, and probably not the follow-on administration either.
Too many people have too much to lose, and the historical president of one administration never going after the prior administration for any crime regardless how great, doesn't bode well for any new administration putting anyone in jail.
So, best case, it will get wound down over a decade. Partly. But probably not significantly.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Tuesday July 29 2014, @04:26AM
I think you're right on. We'll see one of two solutions. Either all reporting and mention of survalance will dry up as the NSA et al. learn to plug their leaks and anonymously tip law enforcement, or the administration (whichever party is in power) will go bat shit crazy, ordering marshal law and arresting all those on the enemies^wterrorist list. And by arrest I mean swat team style raid in the middle of the night to be judged in a secret court and never heard of again. The first scenario is going to happen. The framework for the second is pretty much in place. Only a lack of an executive order and the decent law enforcement officers who are willing to risk their careers and freedom to protect the mostly innocent are stopping it from happening right now. I'd say by 2015 or 2016, all those who would be politically able to oppose this will be removed or neutralized. I'm not saying to get the hell out of Dodge, but prepare to get your papers in order, leave the large cities, and get dialup to remind you that the internet is for official, government sanctioned activities only.
*(Perhaps just dialup is a bit extreme, but you should expect that your internet patterns will be compared against a sedicious activities list that will not be reviewed before getting flagged for unpatriotic crimes.)
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 4, Informative) by mtrycz on Tuesday July 29 2014, @09:40AM
Yes, I do find these efforts important.
But I find it sooooo arrogant, on behalf of americans, to concentrate the debate on "domestic search". Of the billions of people spied, only tens of millions (ie a couple of %) matter?
I understand that there are limits on legal action and other things, and that this particular initiative is just one among many of the EFF's. But the whole debate, even in the comments here, is mostly about the "domestic" aspect of the US surveillance.
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
(Score: 3, Informative) by MrGuy on Tuesday July 29 2014, @12:11PM
So, definitely agree with the principle that everyone's privacy is valuable.
However, the focus on the US domestic side of this equation is, I think, an important step. Because it's the answer to the question "can the NSA be reigned in in ANY way by the rule of law?" If the answer is "no", there's no hope for anyone else. If the courts won't enforce the constitutional guarantees of privacy for US citizens that's expressly guaranteed to them in the constitution, the NSA will continue to have carte blanche to set its own rules and do whatever it wants.
If we can at least agree there are SOME limits to the NSA, the limits on where they are (and what constitutes "reasonable" foreign surveillance) can finally be on the table.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by urza9814 on Tuesday July 29 2014, @01:42PM
Well, technically the Constitution says 'persons', not 'citizens' in that particular section, so if it's unconstitutional for them to tap a US citizen in this manner, then it's just as unconstitutional for them to tap a someone in a foreign country the same way.
But that would just add yet another unnecessary complication to the lawsuit, and it's entirely possible that a judge would disagree with that interpretation and screw the whole thing. So I agree that sticking with US citizens is the safe place to start.
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Tuesday July 29 2014, @06:38PM
Yeah it's an interesting consideration. Or perhaps I should say scary, especially for those not born in the US. I've heard [ted.com] that only about 4% of the world's population resides in the US. That means there are a LOT of people unprotected from misidentification, extraordinary rendition, and even targeted drone strikes, with no legal recourse.
Seems to me the US needs a new superpower to rise, simply to counter its influential overreach. I'm sorry to say that Russia looks like the only viable candidate (China is big enough, but economically hasn't got the will - we're too closely tied with trade and finance). It's sad because Russia is just as bad in some ways, and even more aggressive with the realpolitik. I can't decide if I fear a growing Russia more than I fear the US's uncontested global supremacy.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"