
US court rejects state-secrets defense in NSA surveillance case - pvnick
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2043879/us-court-rejects-statesecrets-defense-in-nsa-surveillance-case.html
======
lettergram
The idea that the government can enact laws which allow them to create secret
programs/law, then allow the justice system to secretly rule on the laws is
monstrous.

It's as if the government can only audit itself, not external entity (the
populous for example) can not review their practices. Even if this judge ruled
this way, the judge above can simply overturn it.

To be honest, I am against ever striking, forming/joining a union, or ever
going to a rally. I feel strongly about things, share my thoughts and hope
someone listens (and obviously vote), but I think this is the most ashamed I
have ever been at being a citizen of a country or a human being in general.
This is the only judge that has ruled this way, and I have seen plenty of
other cases where the judge ruled in the opposing direction. For the first
time I feel going out and protesting may be the only option (especially if
this ruling is overturned).

~~~
apalmer
\--To be honest, I am against ever striking, forming/joining a union, or ever
going to a rally.

Aside, but why? I am too lazy to do such things myself, and I know many who
don't see the need as things are good enough as they are from their
perspective, but i think this is the first time i have seen an 'ideological'
opposition to striking, unions, or rallying.

~~~
lettergram
I am against wasting my time. I think protests are a huge time sync and in the
end there will be likely nothing to show for it. Benjamin Franklin had it
right when he wrote Poor Richard's Almanack, things can be achieved with a pen
or a gun, holding picket signs with ~500 people outside the white house is a
daily (or at least once a month) occurrence.

Don't get me wrong, I would protest if I thought I could (with the help of
others) achieve something, say if 30,000 people protested I could attend that
if I felt strongly. The problem I have is I've never felt strong enough, nor
have I ever seen a protest successful in my lifetime. The country would need
to have at least several million protesters (enough to shut down the economy)
to make a large impact to effect the surveillance state (at least from what I
have seen).

~~~
enraged_camel
What about unions? You realize that many of the benefits we have today - such
as two-day weekends - are a direct result of the union movement, right?

~~~
lettergram
I am strongly against unions, I understand organizing to achieve a cause. The
issue I have with unions is it became a political game and lead to several
major companies running into major financial troubles because of it. Take for
example GM or any other major car manufacturer in the U.S. 50 years ago the
main reason Toyota was able to gobble up so much of the market was because the
U.S. automakers HAD to give the unions what they wanted because the government
stepped in when they would strike. Leading to outrageous pensions, 6 hour work
days, etc.

Organizing to improve working conditions makes sense, but the U.S. government
stepping in to FORCE employers to meet standards that the union sets is a bit
out outrageous to me. If you're doing manual labor and replaceable it's mighty
hard to unionize without the government support, I understand that.
Unfortunately, because you are replaceable you don't have pull and SHOULD NOT
have pull. If a companies working conditions are really that dangerous you can
work in another factory or educate yourself and become skilled enough to be
worth while to please. Not to mention, if it is that dangerous most people
probably wont work in that line of work unless they have no choice, in which
case they should be HAPPY to have that dangerous job because they can eat.

Call me calloused, but I would personally rather work a dangerous job and get
food, as opposed to robbing my employer. We both earn our keep (the employer
and me) and the market sets the price for my work. I am nothing more than a
cog in the machine that is the economy.

~~~
josh2600
You're not calloused, you're just wrong, IMHO.

Having to work a dangerous job is almost always a result of cutting corners in
ways that are ultimately negatively impacting on the aggregate economy. What
you're doing when you provide a dangerous work environment is saying that it's
ok for employees to get injured. When they're injured they probably can't work
for the company anymore, and so that company is socializing the cost of their
healthcare. The public bears the risk of the enterprise, and the private
organization enjoys only the upside; hardly an equitable social arrangement.

In your example of GM, I would actually argue that the unions were not the
ultimate cause of the failure of American automobiles, but rather a lack of
vision, innovation and competitiveness against the Asian manufacturers. One
could also say that dividending endlessly despite failing competitively was a
lack of leadership, but the failure was one stemming from a lack of revenue,
not an outlandish cost structure. It's true that the unions were getting too
much, but that's hardly why GM had to get bailed out.

You're making a libertarian argument that basically says everyone should have
to sing for their supper, irrespective of danger, and that's, frankly, a
draconian view of the world, IMHO. We don't need to work like that anymore;
having dangerous jobs doesn't help advance the economy and in fact actually
harms the aggregate economic output.

To be clear, this is just my opinion, you might disagree, but I hope we can
engage in civil discussion about this very interesting topic :).

~~~
mpyne
> You're making a libertarian argument that basically says everyone should
> have to sing for their supper, irrespective of danger, and that's, frankly,
> a draconian view of the world.

That's been my big complaint with what I understand to be libertarian
ideology. It comes down, in the end, to "f--- you, I already got mine" and a
pyramid of people stepping on the throats of those unlucky souls below them.
It's like a guy hitting a home run off a tee and thinking he's Babe Ruth.

~~~
kbolino
There's always a pyramid, all that changes is who sits atop it and how
everyone else is placed within the strata. All libertarianism says is that you
can't initiate violence or take what's not yours to find your place in that
pyramid.

~~~
mpyne
Sure, but that's what I said. "Why should we help _you_ up the pyramid, it's
not _my_ fault you're down there and I'm up here. It's not like I kicked you
down there!"

I'm certainly glad that I grew up in a world where my success and health
growing up weren't _completely_ dependent on how much my parents had, or what
strata they happened to have found themselves on that pyramid. If that had
been the case I may very well still be eating generic corn flakes with
condensed milk today, instead of having been given the opportunity to
demonstrate by merit my qualifications to do the work I do.

~~~
kbolino
You are saying that elitism is the product of a system that produces it. I am
saying that elitism is inherent to the human condition. There are three ways
to become elite: by force, by theft, or by merit. The only way to ensure it
happens by the method of merit is to forbid theft and force.

~~~
mpyne
Even if we stipulate that elitism is a product of the human condition, that
does not mean that we cannot (or should not) try to ameliorate that. There are
lots of 'products of being human' that we choose to control instead of
allowing to go unfettered. E.g. conflict is a product of the human (and
natural) condition but we strive to avoid violence anyways.

Additionally saying that elitism will happen anyways doesn't mean that
structural factors play no role or should be ignored. You left out one of the
biggest factors of elitism of all: dumb luck! Even if you forbid force and
theft how can you claim that someone meritoriously became elite when they
simply inherited what they had through no skill or effort of their own?

Likewise you can gain elite status by being given it (such as in a cartel or
trust), without stealing it from anyone or using force. Does that fact that
the rest of the cartel feel you're pliable enough to warrant being used as
their lackey really serve as 'merit' in this situation?

So even playing in the logic you've laid out I've established ways to become
elite without merit, and that's assuming your logic is right. I would say
instead that the world of interpersonal relationships (politics and sociology)
is in reality more complex than your logic allows for, which even further
muddies what insights we might be able to draw and apply from that logic. For
instance I don't think I'd agree at all that forbidding theft and force
necessarily leaves only meritorious actions.

Another large question is how do you account for indirect force or theft? If I
burn something noxious and it comes down on a farmer's field as rain and kills
his crops, it's not like I stole it from him or used force, right? But the
effect is the same for him, whether he even knows there is some single person
responsible or not.

~~~
kbolino
In order to ameliorate iniquity, you have to steal. Now you are in the
position of saying who gets to do the stealing, who gets to be stolen from,
and who gets to receive what was stolen. Voila, you've created a new power
hierarchy which is supported by theft and force to those who resist the theft.
The thieves become the elites, the stolen-from become the downtrodden, and the
given-to become the politically favored. The underlying system hasn't changed,
just how the players are arranged.

Addressing your more concrete examples:

1\. The wealthy inheritor. While true that the sudden influx of wealth may
confer an undue bump in social prestige, it won't last unless the individual
knows how to keep it. Wealth is useless sitting in a hoard, it has to be
expended; unwise expenditures will lead to negative returns. In other words,
you don't stay rich for long unless you know what it takes to stay rich, which
is in itself a form of merit. Even if that sounds distasteful to you, bear in
mind that the alternative at which you hint simply involves stealing from this
person and giving to those you favor, who are then placed in the same
position: wealth, if you can keep it. If they're savvy enough to do that, then
they will soon become either your next target or a new elite.

2\. The monopolizing cartel. In order to monopolize a market in an environment
where force and theft are forbidden, a company must offer a product that is
most appealing to customers. That is a form of merit. Now, in order to
maintain that position, the company must continue to offer the most appealing
product. You might say: they could drive out competition by drastically
undercutting their prices. Well, where is the harm in that? The competition
either adapts if it can, or dies out; meanwhile, people pay lower prices. Then
the cycle of raising prices, thus creating an incentive for competition, thus
driving down prices, repeats until the cartel runs out of resources to play
this game.

3\. Negative externalities. If I pollute your arable land, then I have stolen
it from you and replaced it with barren land. It is theft, albeit indirectly,
and so falls under the category of forbidden things. The matter of appropriate
remediation for crimes has not yet been addressed, so I'm not going to bring
it up now.

------
zaroth
Preaching to the choir, but this is why whistle blowers are especially
important;

    
    
      The ruling rejected the state-secrets argument. “Given
      the multiple public disclosures of information regarding
      the surveillance program, the court does not find that the
      very subject matter of the suits constitutes a state
      secret,” Judge Jeffrey White wrote in the ruling.
    

Everyone "knew" the NSA was wiretapping everything, but until Snowden leaked
the docs, lawsuits like this were regularly shut down under 'state secret'
doctrine. I don't exactly have high hopes for how it will turn out, but at
least now perhaps we'll one day see Robert's tortured reasoning for why he let
this happen.

------
unclebucknasty
If this holds, it could be a key ruling. The government's assertions of the
need for secrecy as a matter of national security in virtually everything have
essentially given it carte blanche to do as it pleases AND without true
oversight.

~~~
rayiner
The state secrets defense isn't all that common. It's usually used to keep
weapons programs and the like secret, where we don't want to reveal the extent
of our military capabilities.

National security things don't get litigated that often more because nobody
has standing.

~~~
MaysonL
Go look up the original SCOTUS case for the state secrets defense: it was
based on Pentagon lies. There was no, repeat _NO_ national security secret
involved, merely facts which would have embarassed people and possibly ruined
careers (which should probably have been ruined).

~~~
andrewljohnson
I don't think it's so cut and dry with United States v. Reynolds. Sure, the
documents actually didn't contain state secrets about the B29. But then again,
SCOTUS didn't examine the documents.

SCOTUS is basically saying with this precedent "If the executive says it's a
war secret, it's a war secret, and the tort case of some grieving family can
wait for another day."

So maybe we don't agree with that precedent, and we need a new law. Current
precedent did not occur because SCOTUS read the docs and let the government
lie, though. It occurred because the justices decided not to read the
document, and instead put national security above a tort.

Some stuff I read:

* [http://www.silha.umn.edu/news/summer2003.php?entry=200788](http://www.silha.umn.edu/news/summer2003.php?entry=200788)

* [http://loc.gov/law/help/usconlaw/pdf/PSQ_122_3_Fisher.pdf](http://loc.gov/law/help/usconlaw/pdf/PSQ_122_3_Fisher.pdf)

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege)

------
fixxer
I'm not going to hold my breath, but I'm very happy to see some inkling that
the Constitution has not been all but completely flushed down the crapper by
this and the previous administration.

Any opinions on Rand Paul? I hear a lot of talk, but I'm not seeing any
action.

~~~
Karunamon
Well, since you asked.. he unfortunately holds a lot of the more distasteful
stances that Ron does (in short, tyranny and rights violations is okay if
exercised at the state, rather than federal level)

~~~
redblacktree
This is not really an argument, just something to think about: Local
government is a lot easier to affect, as a citizen.

~~~
wavefunction
That could cut both ways. Easier to affect in both good or bad ways, I mean. I
do agree that simply delineated systems are at least easier to understand and
hold "accountable" though.

------
seferphier
This is a great victory (for now)!

This is why we need to separate the judiciary from the government or any
politics whatsoever.

I am not so confident that the supreme court would find the same ruling since
the president have the power to nominate the justices. I find US practice of
the Senate questioning the nominee's ideology awkward.

Justices need to have permanent tenure to prevent political influences to
affect their decisions.

~~~
hypersoar
This handing was handed down by a federal district court. The judges on that
court are appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and serve for
life. Moreover, the Senate routinely blocks their appointment for political
reasons. So what distinguishes them from SCoTUS justices in this sense?

------
mratzloff
This would be the first step to challenging the legality of NSA wiretapping,
right?

------
pekk
Given how many times I've read here that the US is now a completely
repressive, unconstitutional totalitarian state, I should be surprised that
the US court which rejected this defense was not hit by a drone strike. That's
what happens to anyone who disagrees with the NSA, right?

Perhaps the rejection of the state-secrets defense is really part of some
sinister NSA plot.

------
trestles
Could you just PGP encrypt all your email?

~~~
cypherpunks01
Yes, _you_ could. But not every, nor very many, U.S. citizens have the
knowledge or skill to do this.

~~~
trestles
Sounds like a new product; just integrate your pgp public key into your
facebook profile or something. It'll be here in like a year or something.
Geez, why the constant downvoting?

~~~
jlgreco
Distributing your public key with your facebook profile is fine, but that
won't teach (much less convince) your friends to use it.

Perhaps you could wire up some sort of "facebook app" that would have people
talking to you encrypt their messages to you with your public key, but I doubt
you could really implement that in a way that would prevent facebook from
getting the plaintext (or at least make me confident that they could not). You
would also need some sort of browser-side extension to decrypt, or have to
copy-paste the messages to decrypt.

