
EFF Urges Supreme Court to Take on Unconstitutional NSA Surveillance - DiabloD3
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-urges-supreme-court-take-unconstitutional-nsa-surveillance-reverse-dangerous
======
valuearb
Winning is also about picking the right case. I'm thinking they picked a good
case, given the poor kid was clearly a victim of entrapment.

------
bitwize
How well do you think that will go with Trump loading the Court towards
conservatism and national-security-ism?

~~~
rayiner
If Trump continues to nominate Justices in the Scalia mold, it'll be fine.
Scalia, despite his social conservative leanings, had a good record on the
First Amendmenf, Fourth Amendment, and habeas corpus. For example, he and
Justice Stevens dissented in _Hamdi v. Rumsfeld_ , a case in which the liberal
justices endorsed a wish-washy view of when US citizens could be detained
without due process. (In Scalia's view, only when habeas corpus is suspended,
as set forth in the Constitution). He also wrote the majority opinion in
_Kyllo_ , where the Supreme Court held that police use of infrared imaging to
see through walls was a search requiring a warrant. He joined with Roberts in
_Riley_ , which held that police can't search cell phones incident to arrest.

The vast majority of Trump's Supreme Court short list this last round
consisted of principled originalists, not social conservatives/authoritarians.

~~~
trendia
It seems that Gorsuch is indeed aligned with Scalia as far as the Fourth
Amendment is concerned.

Gorsuch has argued that the state must have a valid warrant to perform a
search, that the warrant must have been properly executed and obtained, and
that police may not use a drug dog to justify a search in the absence of a
warrant [0].

[0] [http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/03/gorsuch-fourth-
amendment/](http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/03/gorsuch-fourth-amendment/)

------
masonic
If only the EFF had bothered to take up such Principled Stances against the
prior Administration, which put all this infrastructure in place.

~~~
mcone
What makes you think they didn't? They were critical of the Obama
administration too. Example: [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/obama-
expands-surveill...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/obama-expands-
surveillance-powers-his-way-out)

~~~
mikeyouse
They sued repeatedly during his administration too:

2016 - [https://www.scmagazine.com/eff-files-amicus-brief-to-
persuad...](https://www.scmagazine.com/eff-files-amicus-brief-to-persuade-
appeals-court-to-hear-wikimedia-v-nsa/article/528815/)

2014 - [https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-sues-nsa-director-
nat...](https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-sues-nsa-director-national-
intelligence-zero-day-disclosure-process)

2013 -
[https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/firstunitar...](https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/firstunitarianvnsa-
final.pdf)

2012 - [https://www.wired.com/2012/08/eff-spy-
documents/](https://www.wired.com/2012/08/eff-spy-documents/)

2011 - [https://www.wired.com/2011/12/dragnet-surveillance-
case/](https://www.wired.com/2011/12/dragnet-surveillance-case/)

~~~
masonic
1) filing an amicus brief is not "suing"

2) A FOIA case isn't exactly criticizing the administration on _policy_.

3) 4) and 5) the NSA suit originated against the _GW Bush_ Administration.
Quoting _their own press release_ : "Specifically the EFF wants the government
to make public a secret court ruling that found that the feds had broken a
2008 wiretapping law that was intended to legalize President George W. Bush's
warrantless wiretapping program."

To be intellectually honest about the _public stances_ they take on issues
they claim to support and rights they claim to defend, compare their press
releases[1] from during the Obama Administration versus during the Trump
administration (or GWB administration) with respect to _identical, specific
acts_ by the Obama administration.

Note specifically their silence on Internet Privacy (lost under Obama, then
reimplemented in a weaker way and delayed) and on Net Neutrality (also lost
under Obama and limited to a half-assed after-the-fact regulation change).

[1]
[https://www.eff.org/updates?type=press_release](https://www.eff.org/updates?type=press_release)

~~~
mikeyouse
This is so laughably disingenuous. They were intensely critical of Obama. I'd
go on to provide more evidence, but a glance at your history shows that you've
been through this several times before, so just use one of the old links:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13982006](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13982006)

