SoylentNews

Blackmoore writes:

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

Phoenix666 writes:

A lawsuit against the National Security Agency's dragnet interception of Internet communications had its first day in federal court Friday, with a diverse coalition of organizations asking a judge to rule against the Obama administration's request that their case be dismissed.

U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis didn't rule from the bench or betray a clear leaning during arguments.

The case was filed in March by the Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia, along with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Amnesty International USA, PEN American Center, Human Rights Watch, The Nation magazine and other human rights and advocacy groups.

The groups are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and say the NSA's "upstream" collection of Internet communications from the cables, routers and switches that make up the Internet's backbone is unconstitutional.

Original Submission

darkfeline writes:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/judge-tosses-wikimedias-anti-nsa-lawsuit-because-wikipedia-isnt-big-enough/

On Friday, a federal judge dismissed an anti-surveillance lawsuit brought by Wikimedia, ruling in favor of the National Security Agency.

In his 30 page ruling, US District Judge T.S. Ellis III found that Wikimedia and the other plaintiffs had no standing, and could not prove that they had been surveilled, largely echoing the previous 2013 Supreme Court decision in the case of Clapper v. Amnesty International .

Judge Ellis found that there is no way to definitively know if Wikimedia, which publishes Wikipedia, one of the largest sites on the Internet, is being watched.

As he wrote in his memorandum opinion:

Plaintiffs' argument is unpersuasive, as the statistical analysis on which the argument rests is incomplete and riddled with assumptions. For one thing, plaintiffs insist that Wikipedia's over one trillion annual Internet communications is significant in volume. But plaintiffs provide no context for assessing the significance of this figure. One trillion is plainly a large number, but size is always relative. For example, one trillion dollars are of enormous value, whereas one trillion grains of sand are but a small patch of beach.

...

As already discussed, although plaintiffs have alleged facts that plausibly establish that the NSA uses Upstream surveillance at some number of chokepoints, they have not alleged facts that plausibly establish that the NSA is using Upstream surveillance to copy all or substantially all communications passing through those chokepoints. In this regard, plaintiffs can only speculate, which Clapper forecloses as a basis for standing.

Since the June 2013 Snowden revelations, by and large, it has been difficult for legal challenges filed against government surveillance to advance in the courts.

Original Submission

Fnord666 writes:

In 2013, a National Security Agency contractor named Edward Snowden revealed US surveillance programs that involved the massive and warrantless gathering of Americans' electronic communications. Two of the programs, called Upstream and Prism, are allowed under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That section expires at year's end, and President Donald Trump's administration, like his predecessor's administration, wants the law renewed so those snooping programs can continue.

That said, even as the administration seeks renewal of the programs, Congress and the public have been left in the dark regarding questions surrounding how many Americans' electronic communications have been ensnared under the programs. Congress won't be told in a classified setting either, despite repeated requests.

Rep. John Conyers, a Democrat from Michigan and member of the House Judiciary Committee, told a panel hearing last week that Congress needed the numbers to help it decide whether to reauthorize the programs.

"The members of this committee and the public at large require that estimate to engage in a meaningful debate," he said.

This isn't the first time lawmakers have been stonewalled on the issue. Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon and a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, had asked for the information in 2011, 2012, and 2014, and he's renewing the request again. Despite the lack of information, Congress has repeatedly renewed the programs even before Snowden revealed them.

"I and other members of Congress have been seeking an answer to this question since 2011. We posed the question again in the context of the reauthorization of Section 702. It is now central to the debate this year over the reauthorization of the program, which you have described as your 'top legislative priority,'" Wyden wrote in a letter to Daniel Coats, Trump's nominee for director of national intelligence.

Source: ArsTechnica

Original Submission