Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Thursday May 07 2015, @05:42PM   Printer-friendly
from the yay-for-the-courts dept.

Wired is reporting:

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This discussion has been archived.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.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday May 07 2015, @08:15PM

    by frojack (1554) on Thursday May 07 2015, @08:15PM (#180054) Journal

    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.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday May 07 2015, @11:56PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday May 07 2015, @11:56PM (#180105) Journal

    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

      by frojack (1554) on Friday May 08 2015, @12:14AM (#180112) Journal

      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

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday May 08 2015, @12:26AM (#180115) Journal

        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

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Friday May 08 2015, @12:38AM (#180119)

          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

          by frojack (1554) on Friday May 08 2015, @12:42AM (#180122) Journal

          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.