SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
THE UNITED STATES Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled on Thursday that the bulk collection of phone metadata by the NSA was illegal under federal law.
Rather than address the constitutionality of the program, the court took a much simpler tack. The decision concludes that the practice is beyond the scope of what the US Congress had in mind when it passed section 215 of the Patriot Act after September 11, 2001.
The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and had been dismissed in 2013 by a lower court. Today's ruling vacates that decision, and could pave the way for a full legal challenge of NSA collection methods, which were first brought to light by Edward Snowden.
Also at: The Intercept, EFF, El Reg, BBC, NYT.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Federal Court Rules NSA Bulk Data Collection Illegal
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 38 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
"The subspace _W inherits the other 8 properties of _V. And there aren't
even any property taxes."
-- J. MacKay, Mathematics 134b
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday May 07 2015, @05:59PM
I can't imagine they're going to order the federal government to cease and desist until the highest court has had their say.
But if forces the Supreme court to actually address the issue rather than refuse the case because of a lack of standing. Refusing to hear the case would let the appeals court's ruling stand. At least... I think that's how it works.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anne Nonymous on Thursday May 07 2015, @06:11PM
The Supremes? Cease and desist? It's a shame they didn't just tell them to Stop in the Name of Love [youtube.com].
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Thursday May 07 2015, @06:28PM
Does it really matter if the ruling stands or not? Nobody with the power to do so will enforce that the program be stopped.
At the very most, I would expect they just trivially alter their 'program', like separating the data into multiple tables or with NSL letters or something else that blatantly violates both the spirit and intent of this ruling. And it'll have a new name.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday May 07 2015, @06:43PM
Yes, it fucking matters.
"Power to enforce" is a complex topic in the constitution, but to pretend that court prohbitions don't matter is to ignore the entire history of jurisprudence in the US. You can live in conspiracy land if you want, one where the Justice department didn't write up a ton of internal memos to pretend to themselves what the NSA was doing was legally covered under previous rulings, but no legal memos override an explicit court decision.
Being ignorant of how the government actually works doesn't excuse your cynicism.
Be prepared for this to not stop everything because new legal memos will be drawn up in accordance with the technicalities of this ruling. But to pretend it doesn't matter is just being another smug, self-satisfied internet commenter who uses cynicism as a cover for laziness.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 07 2015, @06:46PM
Being ignorant of how the government actually works
The NSA has proven how the government actually works: It simply ignores the constitution when it is convenient until stopped with overwhelming forced (hasn't happened yet).
It's not really cynicism, but realism. History shouldn't be ignored.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by ikanreed on Thursday May 07 2015, @06:59PM
God damn, it's like you haven't followed a single element of this entire story since 2006 except the NSA's involved and inappropriate spying happens.
No. It's not "just ignoring the constitution". The broader executive branch has been making up elaborate internal explanations for why the spying is constitutional(using excuses like , and in 2007 (in the case ACLU vs NSA) the Supreme court denied the general public standing for opposing the bill on kinda specious grounds.
This lead to a de jure understanding that the executive memos that justified the program in the first place were still valid according to the courts.
Then Snowden happened, and the ACLU was like "See, this shows concrete harm to individual citizens we have standing" and that's the case that just finished in appeals that we're talking about now.
This whole process has been deeply rooted in legalism and the courts not touching it. This case could indeed facilitate change, though maybe not as much as we want. And you're cynical "they're just ignoring the constitution" bullshit is just that. Cynical bullshit.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday May 07 2015, @07:01PM
Ooops, some html weirdness happend and I lost some text.
Meant to say "(Using excuses like all recorded communication involves at least one foreign person)"
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 07 2015, @07:07PM
No. It's not "just ignoring the constitution". The broader executive branch has been making up elaborate internal explanations for why the spying is constitutional(using excuses like , and in 2007 (in the case ACLU vs NSA) the Supreme court denied the general public standing for opposing the bill on kinda specious grounds.
Which are all such logically invalid garbage that they might as well not bother with the excuses.
There is no cynicism here. You're playing semantic games by saying "They have these nonsensical excuses, so *technically* they're not *just* ignoring the constitution!", and it's bullshit. Their excuses are trash and their actions aren't any less unconstitutional. The government has a history of ignoring the constitution, and yes, using bullshit excuses to do it, like with the internment of Japanese citizens.
I don't know why you're so desperate to attack people who acknowledge the reality that creating ridiculous excuses to violate the constitution isn't much better than just outright ignoring it.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday May 07 2015, @07:09PM
Their excuses being trash doesn't matter much if no one can challenge them.
This right now. This is people challenging them.
How is this hard?
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Thursday May 07 2015, @10:21PM
It isn't hard at all. :-)
I think some of this is frustration and impatience with the process.
Trying to turn a juggernaught takes time and a lot of effort. Things did not get this way overnight, and it will take some serious time and effort to straighten out. (YMMV, depending on your expectations)
I think most people forget that bit.
I agree with you that this is progress, and it is about time. Now, I just hope it isn't just a 'flash in the pan', but a trend. :-)
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday May 08 2015, @12:34AM
Things did not get this way overnight
Whenever there is a 'tragedy' of some sort, many people--and of course the government--demand that we violate the constitution and people's fundamental liberties in exchange for safety. As long as people believe that physical safety is more important than upholding the principles to which the US is supposed to aspire, our liberties will be in danger. The frustration doesn't come from this specific event, but from the fact that, even if we end up winning this particular battle, there will be an endless number of battles to come.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Friday May 08 2015, @02:10AM
The frustration doesn't come from this specific event, but from the fact that, even if we end up winning this particular battle, there will be an endless number of battles to come.
That seems to be the case whenever battling the forces of money and lust for power. There is rarely if ever a complete and final victory. Stop unprecedented government spying now, they'll soon try again in the same or other ways. Those who advocate for civil rights or for the environment or for anything else that stands in the way of greed and lust for power never really win, they only gain temporary holds and have to be vigilant, well, forever, as it only takes a minor change at the top to bring all these threats back in full force. Once lost, these things are usually gone forever. In this "Age of Information", there is another front as the public relations battle is always going on. There is a constant smear campaign, with fake bogeymen and plenty of lies, and the biggest efforts are directed against those who most oppose greed.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday May 07 2015, @08:15PM
I too was disappointed this court found it Illegal, yet passed the buck back to Congress.
This so called "declaring it illegal" is really a victory for the Government, cleverly disguised...
Appellants challenge the program on statutory and constitutional grounds. 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. We affirm the district court’s denial of appellants’ request for a preliminary injunction.
They essentially remanded it back to the very court that dismissed the suit, pointing out that the district court errored ONLY when it asserted that the Patriot act allowed this. They could have found it unconstitutional, but took the chicken hearted way out.
The ruling also contained a wink and a nod to Congress that if they cleaned up the language in 215 the government could go right on doing what it wants to do.
This is no victory by any means. Its just another denial, cloaked in the appearance of an actual review.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday May 07 2015, @11:56PM
I too was disappointed this court found it Illegal, yet passed the buck back to Congress.
Isn't that exactly how it is supposed to work?
(Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Friday May 08 2015, @12:14AM
Nope. If its illegal or unconstitutional they should say that and be done with it.
Instead we get this written right into the decision:
We note that at the present time, § 215 is scheduled to expire
in just several weeks. The government vigorously contends that the program is
necessary for maintaining national security, which of course is a public interest of
the highest order. Allowing the program to remain in place for a few weeks
while Congress decides whether and under what conditions it should continue is
a lesser intrusion on appellants’ privacy than they faced at the time this litigation
began. In light of the asserted national security interests at stake, we deem it
prudent to pause to allow an opportunity for debate in Congress that may (or
may not) profoundly alter the legal landscape.
Essentially, screw you, your case is tossed out, Lets see what congress does.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 08 2015, @12:26AM
Silly me. I thought it was Congress' job to pass laws and the Judiciary to interpret them. Must have been some other Democratic Republic I was thinking of...
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday May 08 2015, @12:38AM
The judiciary cannot take into account the highest law of the land? The problem with this ruling is that it is far too narrow, and will allow congress to simply authorize the spying, or at least that it what I gather. It needs to be made clear that this is simply unconstitutional, and no amount of laws from congress will change that simple fact (short of a constitutional amendment, and if they try that, it should be opposed).
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday May 08 2015, @12:42AM
Its the Courts rule on the laws.
Regardless of what Congress may or may not do, THIS law was just "declared illegal".
The court can't make pronouncements on future laws. Even when future laws are passed
they can't just decide to review it.
Someone with standing has to fight it through the various courts. In this case, after fighting
their case through the courts for years, they are told they can't have an injunction
and their case is tossed out. They have to start from scratch.
The court said, yeah, this should not have happened because it wasn't ever authorized in law,
but you get nothing, and your suit is tossed out. And if congress votes to reauthorize?
Still nothing, still no injunction, and these plaintiffs won't have standing to even appeal
because their suit was dismissed.
I'm pretty sure if you go back and read the constitution, (something you haven't done in quite a while it appears)
you would find that you shouldn't have to take your lawsuits to Congress in the hopes of getting
them to change their mind and admit they were wrong all along.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 07 2015, @08:20PM
Believe it or not courts can force the gov to do things.
Basically 'we ruled this way on the law and you ignored it prepare to lose all the cases related any other way'.
For example take something everyone knows the Miranda rights. For years they were forced to do it.