NSA spying exposed by Snowden was illegal and not very useful, court says:
The National Security Agency's bulk collection of phone metadata from telecom providers was illegal, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday. The court also found that the phone-metadata collection exposed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden was not necessary for the arrests of terror suspects in a case that the US government cited in defending the necessity of the surveillance program.
The ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the 2013 convictions of "four members of the Somali diaspora for sending, or conspiring to send, $10,900 to Somalia to support a foreign terrorist organization." But the Somalis' challenge of the NSA spying program yielded some significant findings. In part, the ineffectiveness of the phone-metadata collection helped ensure that the convictions would be upheld because the illegally collected metadata evidence wasn't significant enough to taint evidence that was legally collected by the government. The government got what it needed from a wiretap of defendant Basaaly Saeed Moalin's phone, not from the mass collection of metadata.
The court's three-judge panel unanimously "held that the metadata collection exceeded the scope of Congress's authorization in 50 U.S.C. § 1861, which required the government to make a showing of relevance to a particular authorized investigation before collecting the records, and that the program therefore violated that section of FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act]," the ruling said.
The judges also wrote that "the government may have violated the Fourth Amendment when it collected the telephony metadata of millions of Americans, including at least one of the defendants." But the judges didn't make a ruling on the potential Fourth Amendment violation because it wasn't necessary to decide the case. While "the Fourth Amendment requires notice to a criminal defendant" when prosecutors want to use evidence from surveillance at trial, the judges "did not decide whether the government failed to prove any required notice in this case because the lack of such notice did not prejudice the defendants," the ruling said.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 03 2020, @10:46PM (22 children)
That's the real kicker, isn't it? I mean, if I were to decide to break the law, I would expect to gain something from it. I think most people expect to gain something from breaking the law. Whether that gain be 2 seconds from running a stop sign, or a few thousand dollars gained through theft, we want to get something that we deem useful.
Here, the intel communities and law enforcement are breaking the law, and not getting anything useful?
We should presume then, that they just enjoy breaking the law, to no purpose? Scofflaws deserve to spend some time in jail.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Thursday September 03 2020, @11:21PM (5 children)
They were siphoning off all the data in the hope of fishing something good in it. And then they pretended they did to justify the siphoning, which the judge rightfully saw as clutching at straws.
But more importantly, I'm not sure why the usefulness of the collected data enters into the picture. The minute it's illegal, it's unacceptable - useful or not.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 03 2020, @11:56PM (4 children)
The question was whether it "poisoned" the conviction. If this illegally acquired information was needed for the conviction, then the conviction is poisoned as well and has to be overturned. But by being deemed "useless" the conviction was allowed to stand.
To use a car example, suppose the police put a tracker on my car without a warrant or probable cause, and hence, illegally. If later, they catch me smuggling Canadian maple syrup on the basis of that illegal tracker, then they can't convict me. But if their case doesn't rely on the illegal tracker (say because someone more competent built up a case using legally acquired evidence), then the conviction isn't threatened by the illegal activity.
(Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Friday September 04 2020, @01:16AM
Well it is the NSA we're talking about. Almost none of the three letter agencies really care about due process anymore. Just throw in the terrorist word and the law doesn't apply anymore - at least, no law that respect the constitution.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2020, @07:48AM (1 child)
Unless that other someone was parallelconstructing your case. And you won't really know if he was.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 05 2020, @12:45AM
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2020, @12:25PM
It probably wasn't particularly useful in this case as the money had to get out of the country and to those groups somehow. Given the amount of attention that money traveling through the banking system gets, I'd be surprised if they were really counting on phone details for the conviction.
More likely, they got the tip-off in some other way and this was just something they were using to strengthen their case and they were allowed to use it.
There's all this attention being paid to the police as if it's an isolated issue, but the reality is that as long as prosecutors and courts are going along with these blatantly unconstitutional methods of investigation and prosecution, what the cops do is going to be at most a minor concern. Not being shot by cops is typically pretty easy, to arrange, in virtually all cases the deceased was running or fighting with them. If you don't do either of those two things, the likelihood of being shot drops to damn near zero. If there's an actual issue, that's what the courts are for.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday September 03 2020, @11:33PM (4 children)
You might be doing a cost/benefit analysis, and decided if the risks of breaking the law make the benefits worthwhile, which is only necessary if there is a risk.
These laws were broken by the servants of your ruling class, so there is no real risk, as there will never be any consequences.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday September 04 2020, @01:22AM (3 children)
^^^
Because the ruling class is free from considerations about the usefulness of their actions, they can do as they please with not even an economic penalty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday September 04 2020, @02:27AM (2 children)
Economic penalty? You sound like some sort of marxist.
Just keep shoveling your tax money into those massively profitable corporations that might all fail because of Covid-19 like a good capitalist ok?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday September 04 2020, @03:13AM (1 child)
I keep remembering those kings of the past (the ruling class) who lost their life because they overspent (on crusades, or armies or palaces).
The modern ruling class can just print money.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2020, @03:32PM
Until someone is willing to 'call in' the debt from outside the system, there is no way for individuals inside the system to prove the coffers are dry. Thanks to all currency being replaced with not just fiat, but actually 'virtual' currency, it's easy to make up whatever numbers are needed, and thanks to the scale of it, there is no effective way for anyone other than another nation-state to prove they are out of money until the debt is called due, and resources to back that debt cannot be found, packaged and transferred.
So short of a massive purchase of natural resources massive quantities of labor, or another physical product, there is no way to show that the economy has already tipped past the point of making good on its debts.
(Score: 1) by fakefuck39 on Friday September 04 2020, @02:23AM (8 children)
It was plenty useful, just not on paper. You find a bunch of criminals, and use parallel construction to arrest them. You can't admit what you actually used in a court or it gets thrown out.
A long time ago, while living in France, I was shopping around ebay for some chemicals, some water aspirators, some flasks. Semi-random stuff purchased over a year. Then I ordered some aniseed oil. That's when ebay put small plastic ziplock bags in my suggested items. Not after all the lab equipment - after the essential oil that mlm soccer moms buy.
Ebay was right - after just being bored and making low-acidity coffee and improving the taste of cheap wine to entertain myself, washing my shoes in dichloromethane, and extracting fresh apple flavor for hookah tobacco, I got really really bored and made something that normally gets put in those small plastic baggies. Now if the cops had my ebay data, they could follow my car when I left my house Saturday night, pull me over for going 2km/h too fast, and I'd get busted for having pma in on me. Would ebay data get me arrested - yes. But on paper it would be going 2km/h over the speed limit.
And that's the case here. The data collection wasn't useless - it did exactly what they wanted it to do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2020, @12:34PM (7 children)
The big issue with this is that it's bullshit. I don't know about the laws over there, but in the US, they would need a lot more than you going slightly over the speed limit in order to do any investigation. Going a bit over the speed limit would allow them to pull the vehicle over and not much else. Unless you've got something more in the vehicle, they wouldn't be allowed to investigate beyond that and even then it would be pretty limited.
Parallel construction is a real problem, but they can't just investigate because they feel like it, if you haven't done something that would allow them to investigate, they can't investigate. They can look harder for a way, but in most of these cases, these are people who did something that allowed the parallel construction to work, it's not like they typically create it from scratch.
Obviously, it's an abuse of power that needs to stop, but it's a bit overblown in that they still need some path that would stand up in court as to how they got the evidence.
(Score: 2, Informative) by fakefuck39 on Friday September 04 2020, @04:45PM (6 children)
WTF are you literally talking about? In the US, the cops pulls you over for any reason they want, make you wait for a drug dog, and signal the drug dog to bark. Then they search your car. They can say they smelled weed. Do you, um, actually live here?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2020, @08:49PM (5 children)
Around here, they don't bother with the dog unless they're bored. They just say "What's that smell? Step out of the vehicle"
(Score: 1) by fakefuck39 on Friday September 04 2020, @09:15PM (4 children)
Which is perfectly legal. You then fully comply and step out of the vehicle. If they then search your car without the dog or your permission, you're in luck - you can have a kilo of heroin and an illegal gun in your glove box, and none of it is admissible in court.
(Score: 2) by DeVilla on Saturday September 05 2020, @03:59AM (3 children)
When I lived in Ohio law enforcement needed probable cause to search your car.
They were allowed to ask your permission to search your car.
If you did not grant permission, that established probable cause.
(Score: 1) by fakefuck39 on Saturday September 05 2020, @08:39AM (2 children)
I remember in Nashville in my party days. I was in my mid 20s, had a small consulting company and was making bank, and rented an apartment on the Vanderbilt campus for a year for a gig. Bought an old dying lexus from the client to get the gig, let's just say for much more than it was worth (nothing). Coked up and drunk, car full of guys and gals, coming home from a strip club with a stripper in the car, drinking in the car. We were waiting to turn left into the apartment complex, but at the last minute changed my mind to go straight to the gas station to get some cigs.
Cop pulls me over right away. This was like a 2-block 15mph drive at 3am, zero cars on the road. I give him my info, he asks me to step out. I roll up the windows, take my keys with me, and lock the car when I step out. He has me stand on one foot and count to 30 - I count nice and slow, no balance issues. I walk the walk, no issues. He does the pen eye-cross thing and claims they crossed - I say I took an aspirin an hour ago. He says I was 5mph speeding. I wasn't, since he pulled me over literally as I let off the brake. I ask his radar detector model number, the last date it was calibrated, and the last date he had training on that model detector.
He says "we all know you're drunk but you're free to go." I do get a speeding ticket. It got thrown out when I went to court instead of paying it.
The cop might say not granting permission established probable cause. I don't know OH law, but it clearly can't be that. So again, if they use that excuse to search the car, you're lucky - anything they find is inadmissible. The key is to say as little as possible, comply even with illegal requests, and keep in mind that the day you fight the guy is in front of a judge, who is not part of the executive branch of government. But who should go to the same golf course as your attorney.
(Score: 2) by DeVilla on Saturday September 05 2020, @09:15PM (1 child)
I confirmed it years ago with a Judge (then magistrate or DA, I for get) in the family. She said they aren't supposed to abuse it, but did not deny it. I guess it's like civil forfeiture in that way.
(Score: 1) by fakefuck39 on Saturday September 05 2020, @11:39PM
And just like in Civil Forfeture, where you absolutely can get your money back following proper procedure, your mistake was talking to the judge. That's the equivalent of hiring your gardener to fix your computer. An attorney with thousands of hours of studying law is qualified for that - by siting the actual laws, as well as previous cases. You didn't do that - you just had a conversation with the judge. The judge is not on your side, or anyone else's side. You are supposed to present your case well to him, and he makes the decision based on your argument. You had no arguments - you had a conversation. If you talked to the DA, that's even worse - he is literally by law against you - it's not his job to get you off.
I don't agree with the way the current system works. Everyone should get free representation on their side, just like everyone gets a "free" DA to prosecute them. The real life of the matter is there are too many cases to do that, so the current system is the only way it can work with the resources available.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday September 04 2020, @02:23AM
Seems like they got scammed...
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2020, @04:00AM
The real problem is that it's unconstitutional, not that it's not useful. If it were useful, that would be worse, because it would apparently legitimize the unconstitutional, democracy-destroying mass surveillance in many people's eyes.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Thursday September 03 2020, @11:05PM (10 children)
It gave us something to talk about, you know, like the weather. I mean, nobody's going to jail or anything for it, are they? So what the hell, how 'about them Cubs?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday September 04 2020, @09:56AM (1 child)
> nobody's going to jail or anything for it
Nobody except Snowden?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2020, @12:40PM
It's been ages, but isn't this one also the one that ultimately got Assange in all that trouble?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 04 2020, @04:43PM (7 children)
Think for a minute about what you are actually advocating here. Consider other prominent questions of Constitutionality:
Take Marriage Equality as an example. When gays were denied marriage certificates their Constitutional rights were violated according to the Supreme Court. Should every clerk that refused to issue a marriage certificate be thrown in jail?
What about Segregation? Should every white government official that violated a black person's Constitutional rights be thrown in jail?
Seems like if the answer was yes we would never make any progress in this country.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday September 04 2020, @04:52PM (6 children)
And why shouldn't they be punished for violating the law? Just like many other cases, you don't have to throw them in jail on a first offense. They do it twice, you nail them to the wall. No, tell you what, let's be generous like Biden, and give them three strikes. Happy?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 04 2020, @04:59PM (5 children)
Maybe there could be a "willfullness" standard like e.g. Safety/Environmental law.
E.g. if a reasonable person would conclude it's a violation then the punishment goes from a slap on the wrist to something more significant. That makes enforcement messy, though.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday September 04 2020, @05:13PM (4 children)
Doesn't have to be messy. The rules are pretty straight up. Everybody has to be treated the same. The Sword of Damocles is a perfectly cromulent option. Contrary to your beliefs, progress is much more likely if the rules are enforced. We need to put a much higher price on power than we do now. No more immunity
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 04 2020, @05:22PM (3 children)
Yeah... proving in a court of law what someone should have known does, in fact, need to be messy.
I was involved in a lawsuit that hinged on the question of willfulness out in the real world so I've seen exactly how messy it is, and needs, to be.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday September 04 2020, @05:36PM (2 children)
The "mess" comes from corruption. We are responsible for oversight of the system. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" as we are always told. And people in this position are expected to know the rules, or they are not qualified, to me anyway. A second violation proves willfulness. There really shouldn't be a chance for a third attempt. It would only confirm the person is incorrigible, and probably should at least be sentenced to wear an ankle bracelet.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 04 2020, @05:54PM (1 child)
The mess was caused by "innocent until proven guilty."
God, your black and white fantasy land is so boring. Join reality, you'll notice it's infinite shades of gray which is much more interesting.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday September 04 2020, @06:22PM
Make all the fun you want. When I see the choices you leave us for president, I find you quite amusing, in a tragic sort of way
Join reality? We are suffering your reality when you make it ours. And gray? Please! Don't you want even a hint of color?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2020, @11:12PM (3 children)
i think if we let the native americans have more land it would be a landslide victory of the bathtubs which glow in the dark and say hey yes you you need to come over here so you approach the glowing bathtub and it says buy me some crackers, you crackerhead. so you go buy some crackers but while you're there, the toilet seats for sale hanging from the wall each start to sing and form a melody a beautiful song which you record with your smart phone. you giggle with delight and click your heels together.
suddenly a large bucket of yellow paint falls upon your head, followed by the floor, and spills out into the aisle forming a yellow line. you decide to follow it.
when you come to the end of the yellow paint stains you discover you just peed in your pants. you didn't feel it though, how odd!
the cashier tells you to spin around with your eyes closed 17 times. You do so. When you open your eyes you're back at home, and you can hear the glowing bathtub in the bathroom screaming at you. "You forgot to buy crackers you dumb motherfucker!"
He's right. You're wrong. You open a desk drawer to reveal a pistol. You grab it without hesitation and everything goes
DARK
A
R
K
The End
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2020, @12:41AM (2 children)
The spying isn't useless. the story is useless! the moderator is useless! you're all useless!
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday September 04 2020, @01:46AM (1 child)
"I'm not out of order! YOU'RE out of order! You want the truth?! YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by arslan on Friday September 04 2020, @06:14AM
Cypher : You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize?
[Takes a bite of steak]
Cypher : Ignorance is bliss.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2020, @01:38AM (17 children)
We shouldn't even have those people here. It's nuts.
They follow a violent belief system that prohibits accepting the legitimacy of our non-religious government. The belief system declares that we are inferior beings, to be enslaved and raped and killed. It also requires dishonesty toward us, and it requires that peace treaties with us be temporary.
Somalia is also home to the lowest IQ people on the entire planet.
Exactly how are they supposed to make our nation richer, safer, cleaner, peaceful, unified, or anything else positive? All I see are negatives.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday September 04 2020, @01:45AM (11 children)
That's a fair description of the US's Dominionist cohort, except they call Allah God while the Somali Muslims call God Allah. Hm...it's almost like the entire Abrahamic family of religions is deeply diseased and insane.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Informative) by fakefuck39 on Friday September 04 2020, @02:37AM (9 children)
I would say anyone who believes in a religion is by definition insane. It doesn't mean a god cannot exist. The chances of that are astronomically low based on the observable universe, to it's the same as making up a 3-assed space-pig and assuming that exists. so insane.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday September 04 2020, @09:23AM (7 children)
So, I am insane?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by NateMich on Friday September 04 2020, @09:41AM (3 children)
Most likely, yes.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday September 04 2020, @10:04AM (2 children)
Wow, that is some unabashed dehumanization.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2020, @12:45PM
Not really, why do you think the mentally ill are subhuman?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05 2020, @11:40PM
Most everyone is some shade of crazy, religion just primes people with some seriously flawed crazy off the bat. Most people are unable to overcome the insanity, but a good chunk are able to integrate their faith with reality.
The tide is turning, the days when we have to just accept your religious insanity is over. People are allowed to say happy holidays without being screamed at by Christians who demand everyone act like them and believe what they believe. Christians have been persecuting non-christians in the US since forever, to the point of even treating Catholics as fake Christians.
So yeah, religion makes you crazy, but you're still human. There is hope for you if you can integrate with reality. Doubt you are capable though given your age and posts around here. My my how (lol) offended you get about anything critical of your Christianity, Whiteness, or Maleness. PC culture gone too far? Cancel culture out of control? Guess who invented that shit? Yup, white Christians with their martyred Wars on Christmas and other nonsense.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday September 04 2020, @02:35PM (2 children)
Hell yes you're insane, and not just because of what you believe. You claim to hold certain moral positions and act and speak in ways directly counter to them. That sounds like insanity to me. Your constant adulation of the Canaanite Genocide Fairy is a big part of the pathology but it's not the whole picture.
Face it: everything you claim makes you "one of the good ones" is shallow virtue signalling, and you've been following the same path Runaway has for, I now see, at least 2 years.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2020, @03:06PM (1 child)
No, that's just politics. The insanity part is where people keep voting for such people.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday September 04 2020, @03:47PM
You forgot to log in, Fusty :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2020, @10:18AM
Most likely, yes. You don't have to believe in a religion for it to exist. You can even empirically verify it, with a double-null-plusgood sciency hypothesis and all that. The government even has special accomodations for it, with tax cuts and a first amendment exemption for it.
So why would anyone have to believe in a religion, rather than simply accept it as truth that a religion exists?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2020, @10:03AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2020, @02:56AM
I say we kick you out first.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2020, @03:16AM (3 children)
The food is great though!
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday September 04 2020, @09:27AM (2 children)
Throw a kebab on top of Eritrean or Ethiopean food and you have the same thing without the crazy.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday September 04 2020, @02:29PM
So can I assume that was you who started this subthread to begin with?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05 2020, @11:42PM
You act all persecuted then you go and just call ever Somalian crazy? Of course you have to throw in some other African cuisine to make sure we all know it isn't because they are black.... but of course it is, any excuse to hate black people is a-ok.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Friday September 04 2020, @09:33AM (5 children)
The NSA spying has exposed a critical weakness in the American republic. That agency willfully violated the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and the people in that agency who directed it to do so are suffering no consequences for the epic abuse of millions of Americans (well, all of them, basically). If there is no penalty for that crime, that deep, fundamental crime, then no government agency or individual leader within it has any incentive at all to follow the Constitution. And, no, voting out temporary members of Congress or the Executive Branch at one or two steps of remove from the permanent bureaucracy is no "penalty" at all.
There have to be penalties in the Constitution for violating the Constitution, or it means nothing.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PiMuNu on Friday September 04 2020, @10:02AM (3 children)
There is an assumption in your logic - that breaking the law has to be associated with a penalty. This is the case for criminal law but not civil law. I rather think the constitution is more like civil law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2020, @10:21AM (2 children)
So, who has standing to sue for violating the constitution, under your civil law assumption?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2020, @01:13PM
See, that is the beauty of it, since they spied of everyone the loss is felt evenly among "all" Americans and so no one does!
Its the perfect crime!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 04 2020, @04:56PM
Anyone whose Civil Rights were violated has standing according to the Civil Rights Act. [wikipedia.org]
This is the actual law, not an assumption.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2020, @02:45PM
If you wave enough American flags, it's not a crime. Read the Constitution.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gaaark on Friday September 04 2020, @02:22PM (3 children)
isn't there a whistle blower law protecting people who tell on those who are breaking the law? Shouldn't Snowden get some protection under that law: he exposed the US government doing illegal things.
Snowden should be hailed as a hero: instead, he's a criminal in exile who exposed criminals who are still free and living in America.
Snowden, through the looking glass.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2020, @02:46PM
Ah he still believes in fairy tales. Time to put down the toy whistle, son.
(Score: 2) by leon_the_cat on Friday September 04 2020, @04:00PM
Even worse was UK government threatening to shut down a newspaper unless they returned/destroyed files.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 04 2020, @05:01PM
That is definitely an easier claim to make now that the courts have ruled that it was, in fact, illegal.
(Score: 2) by leon_the_cat on Friday September 04 2020, @04:04PM
and misleading. It generalizes "not very useful" but the article is specific to a case.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2020, @11:36PM
Illegal Spying Is Illegal [eff.org]
And a cool sticker [eff.org]