
Important Allies Join the Fight Against NSA Internet Backbone Surveillance - alexcasalboni
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/03/twenty-four-million-wikipedia-users-cant-be-wrong-important-allies-join-fight
======
bnejad
"A federal court in San Francisco sided with the U.S. Department of Justice,
ruling that the plaintiffs could not win a significant portion of the case—a
Fourth Amendment challenge to the NSA’s tapping of the Internet
backbone—without disclosure of classified information that would harm national
security. In other words, Judge Jeffrey White found that “state secrets” can
trump the judicial process and held that EFF’s clients could not prove they
have standing."

From the linked ruling in the article. This type of ruling is mind boggling -
what a giant cop out that the government can just say "oh sorry national
security!" to end court cases.

~~~
mikegioia
It's unbelievable to me, too. It basically means the government can both
violate the Constitution and absolve itself for the reason of "national
security". To think how that would have gone over in the 18th century!

~~~
LLWM
Of course it can. [http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-
lincoln...](http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-lincoln-
suspends-the-writ-of-habeas-corpus-during-the-civil-war)

~~~
bediger4000
Lincoln was president in the _19th_ century. Washington, Adams, etc, were the
_18th_ century presidents.

And my money is on Washington and Jefferson spinning in their graves every
time "national security" is used to squash a court case.

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts)

------
nickysielicki
> "It also said that the additional information needed was just too secret to
> serve as a basis for a court decision about whether the constitution has
> been violated. As a result, the District Court found that a “full and fair
> adjudication” of our clients' Fourth Amendment claims would require
> consideration of evidence covered by the state secrets privilege and would
> risk harm to national security."

This is pathetic. This country is seriously fucked.

------
earldouglas
There's a Reddit AMA about this happening right now:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2zpkxx/we_are_jameel_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2zpkxx/we_are_jameel_jaffer_of_the_aclu_wikipedia/)

~~~
Red_
HN submission:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9240326](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9240326)

------
josefresco
"As former NSA Director Michael Hayden recently put it, "[L]et me be really
clear. NSA doesn't just listen to bad people. NSA listens to interesting
people. People who are communicating information."

Isn't this the correct approach? In a perfect world the NSA would only need to
"listen" to criminals outside the US, but the world isn't perfect and
adversaries don't play by the rules.

Shouldn't this be a triumph of technology that can tell the difference between
Johnny-High-Schooler researching the middle east, and a radicalized potential
terrorist?

~~~
nullc
Yea, well they could stop a lot more terrorism if they just shot everyone in
the head they suspected was a terrorist or interacted with anyone they
suspected was a terrorist.

Criminals don't play by the rules, you know.

------
niche
Hooray for democracy! A self correcting system indeed. Even the NSA is capable
of meaningful change.

