

Judge rules for NSA in warrantless search case - sinak
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/10/us-usa-security-ruling-idUSKBN0LE2U820150210

======
sinak
Here is the actual ruling itself:

[https://ia801403.us.archive.org/22/items/gov.uscourts.cand.2...](https://ia801403.us.archive.org/22/items/gov.uscourts.cand.207206/gov.uscourts.cand.207206.321.0.pdf)

Excerpt:

> Disclosure of this classified information would risk informing adversaries
> of the specific nature and operational details of the Upstream collection
> process and the scope of the NSA’s participation in the program.
> Notwithstanding the unauthorized public disclosures made in the recent past
> and the Government’s subsequent releases of previously classified
> information about certain NSA intelligence gathering activities since 2013,
> the Court notes that substantial details about the challenged program remain
> classified. The question of whether Plaintiffs have standing and the
> substantive issue of whether there are Fourth Amendment violations cannot be
> litigated without impinging on that heightened security classification.
> Because a fair and full adjudication of the Government Defendants’ defenses
> would require harmful disclosures of national security information that is
> protected by the state secrets privilege, the Court must exclude such
> evidence from the case.

So the court isn't ruling on whether NSA surveillance is constitutional.
They're saying NSA surveillance is too secret for them to be able to rule on,
because state secrets privilege.

~~~
themartorana
Right. You can't establish that you were harmed, but the easily obtainable
evidence you should be able to present in discovery is classified. I know it
exists, you know it exists, but State Secrets, so no.

------
vonklaus
Absolutely comical. White argued the plaintiffs didn't have enough information
about the program to sue. Ahhhh, the ol' you don't know enough about our
highly and intentionally secret program to make a case against it...

------
tmaly
I thought the constitution was suppose to trump other laws. Is this state
secrets law a new amendment I missed?

~~~
Slartibreakfast
The next thing you know, we'll have a Secret Court. Oh, wait.

~~~
eternalban
Actually the next thing is people like us getting rounded up ..

------
diafygi
Firstly, [https://eff.org/donate](https://eff.org/donate)

Secondly, from the judgment[1]:

    
    
        Based on the public record, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed
        to establish a sufficient factual basis to find they have standing to sue
        under the Fourth Amendment regarding the possible interception of their
        Internet communications.
    

Another day, another ruling that we can't prove we are spied on. Whenever you
can get the authority to rule on the actual program's legality, it's ruled
illegal[2].

Thirdly, from the judgment:

    
    
        Further, having reviewed the Government Defendants’ classified submissions,
        the Court finds that the Claim must be dismissed because even if Plaintiffs
        could establish standing, a potential Fourth Amendment Claim would have to
        be dismissed on the basis that any possible defenses would require
        disclosure of state secret information.
    

This is the surprising part. How in the hell can a federal law trump the
Constitution? This part of the ruling sets the precedent that the Executive
can violate the Constitutional rights of anyone, including other branches of
government (including the Judiciary itself!), and get away with it if the
program is a state secret, _even if you have evidence of the violation_. This
is very clear and firm loss of power of the Judiciary and Legislative
branches.

Why is the Judiciary rolling over like this? The rule of law is being
systematically shut down all around them, and they are just sitting there
making themselves obsolete. The reason we have three branches of government
that are adversarial is so that when one starts to grab for power, the others
shut it down. Unchallengable Constitutional violations is exactly the kind of
power grab that the Judiciary is supposed to shut down.

Fourthly: [https://eff.org/donate](https://eff.org/donate)

EDIT: Okay, after having read the full judgment, the very strange thing about
it is that the can't-sue-even-if-have-standing claim is almost entirely
without references. The standing section has tons of references to prior case
law. But the state secrets section has very few citations and and is quite a
bit of "grave damage to national security" talk without citation.

\---

[1]:
[https://ia801403.us.archive.org/22/items/gov.uscourts.cand.2...](https://ia801403.us.archive.org/22/items/gov.uscourts.cand.207206/gov.uscourts.cand.207206.321.0.pdf)

[2]: [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/world/europe/electronic-
su...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/world/europe/electronic-surveillance-
by-spy-agencies-was-illegal-british-court-says.html)

~~~
patzerhacker
I decided to stop donating to EFF and instead donate to the ACLU when the EFF
decided its time was better spent on re-litigating apartheid[1].

[1] [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/eff-files-amicus-
brief...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/eff-files-amicus-brief-case-
seeks-hold-ibm-responsible-facilitating-apartheid)

~~~
pXMzR2A
> re-litigating apartheid

In case you missed it, the legal practices in the US depend on previous court
cases.

> U.S. corporations should not enjoy immunity for their purposeful assistance,
> technological or otherwise, in gross human rights violations
> ([https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/eff-files-amicus-
> brief...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/eff-files-amicus-brief-case-
> seeks-hold-ibm-responsible-facilitating-apartheid))

A positive ruling on this case, which presents to the courts not only a racist
and violent but also a clearly stigmatized political system, would affect
greatly how courts would behave towards companies collaborating with similar
governments in the present time.

Furthermore, are you kidding me? IBM should be absolved of responsibility for
aiding and abating severe human rights violations? Stop giving money to ACLU
too, then. [https://www.aclu.org/blog/racial-justice-human-
rights/mandel...](https://www.aclu.org/blog/racial-justice-human-
rights/mandela-faced-goliath-racial-discrimination)

~~~
patzerhacker
>In case you missed it, the legal practices in the US depend on previous court
cases.

You could dial back the snark a little here.

>Furthermore, are you kidding me? IBM should be absolved of responsibility for
aiding and abating severe human rights violations?

I never said that. What I am saying is that there are other groups that would
be better suited to take up this cause. Technologically minded people tend to
be crappy socially and ethically.

------
rasz_pl
We need a brave insider leak some private data obtained using one of NSA
programs of _every single federal judge_. Something simple, like one full
recording of a phone call/private email per judge/judges spouse.

Snowden showed that every analyst can just log in and get at this shit with no
checks, no warrants, no supervision. Somehow people in power still think they
are above the rest.

~~~
hammock
Maybe they are doing that now, just blackmailing the judges with it

------
ancap
Big surprise. The government rules in favor of the government. Separation of
powers is a myth.

~~~
zmanian
The government isn't a unified entity. It's worth watching what arms of the
government and governmental elites cooperate with the totalitarian
surveillance regime and what arms defect.

~~~
hitchhiker999
Are you kidding? Yes it's a unified entity. I will chop off a leg if a
government 'arm' defects. Go back to sleep America, everything is under
control.

------
eyeareque
I wonder how many secret meetings the judge had with the NSA to come up with
this expected ruling.

~~~
300bps
This is just one of the biggest dangers of having an agency that spies on
everyone with impunity. Limitless blackmail capability could make almost
anyone conform to their will.

~~~
eyeareque
I think the NSA down voted me. And I totally agree with your statement.

