
Civil Liberties Groups Are Suing the NSA - sethbannon
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/aclu-lawsuit-nsa-analysis/66139/
======
ck2
Great to hear. This is a "country of laws" as every lawmaker likes to say, so
sue this program out of existence.

Within the USA this is a clear violation of the right to free-association
(which should also work against drone tracking).

The Atlantic is really churning out great articles on this, another good one
from yesterday:

[http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/the-
obam...](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/the-obama-
surveillance-revelations-are-pushing-liberals-over-the-edge/276755/)

~~~
blahedo
> _The Atlantic is really churning out great articles on this, another good
> one from yesterday_

I agree; and anyone else out there who agrees should consider getting a
subscription. Information may want to be free, but content production isn't!
:) I subscribed last summer, renewed last month, and haven't regretted it.

------
sethbannon
My favorite bit:

"We cannot mention the letter at the heart of the EFF's demand without noting
that it comprises perhaps the most diverse collection of groups in the modern
history of American politics."

------
grappler
If you are passionate about the right to bear arms, because you view it as a
vital protection against a tyrannical government, I'm curious how you feel
about surveillance/collection of all your phone calls, movements, and internet
activity.

Why is there massive support in this country for the right to own & use guns,
but not for the right to communicate privately and not be tracked and
monitored?

Do the same people who view banning guns as a threat not view massive
surveillance as a threat?

~~~
ollysb
I really have trouble believing that the real reason people want a gun is so
they can fend off the government. To be honest when you consider the
opposition(the American military!) I don't know how anyone can say it with a
straight face.

~~~
willurd
I hear this one a lot. "The military is so big, they have missiles, drones,
etc etc etc, you could never defeat them in battle." This argument has several
flaws:

1\. This is just more proof that we (the people) need to hold on to whatever
arms we can get. We've mistakenly let our military accrue a cache and kind of
weaponry that we have not allowed even ourselves to possess. If the powder keg
does explode, less arms is not better than more.

2\. Many service men and women take their pledge to uphold _the constitution_
very seriously, and would _not_ take up arms against the American people (and
most likely _would_ take up arms against a tyrannical government, should it
come to that). This is why many veterans are proclaimed mentally incompetent
and disarmed
([http://www.benefits.va.gov/pensionandfiduciary/fiduciary/ben...](http://www.benefits.va.gov/pensionandfiduciary/fiduciary/beneficiary.asp),
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NlBgtIeU1s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NlBgtIeU1s)).

3\. There are 1.5 million active military personnel and 850 thousand reserves
(Wikipedia). There 311 million Americans, not including the roughly 3 million
that are active or reserve military personnel. We are a bigger force by far.

4\. "You're going to die if you fight." Appeal to emotion.

5\. "How can you even say that with a straight face." Appeal to ridicule.

6\. There are many reasons to "want a gun" beyond protecting yourself from
tyranny, including self defense from criminals, sport, hunting and recreation.
But "wanting" has nothing to do with it. You don't need to explain why you
want a gun and you don't have to show a "need" for it. It is your inalienable
(seriously, look this word up, ponder its meaning) right. It _cannot_ be taken
from you (though you can give it up willingly, I suppose).

EDIT:

7\. In 2011, Ron Paul received 6 times
([http://ronpaulronpaul.com/](http://ronpaulronpaul.com/)) more in
contributions from active military personnel than all of the other republican
candidates _combined_. For those that don't know, Ron Paul ran on a campaign
of small government, less war, etc. That should tell you where our military
stands on this matter.

~~~
darkarmani
> Many service men and women take their pledge to uphold the constitution very
> seriously, and would not take up arms against the American people

This has been disproved by President Washington during the Whiskey rebellion.
Everyone had equal guns and the insurrection was squashed.

~~~
twoodfin
Doesn't it matter that the guy giving the orders was President-
freakin'-Washington? Even putting aside the Constitutional questions of the
Whiskey Rebellion, I don't think that's reasonable evidence on the fair-
mindedness of U.S. military personel.

~~~
darkarmani
But that is the closest match of weaponry there ever will be.

------
confluence
> _Civil Liberties Groups Are Ganging Up on NSA_

That's a very odd turn of phrase. The NSA is a multi-billion dollar behemoth
whereas civil liberty groups are just social gadflys.

~~~
hnriot
Yeah, I'm sure the NSA are trembling, if they gave two shits about laws or
civil liberties we would be here, so I'm sure this isn't going to do a thing.

~~~
alan_cx
They will if US voters vote in a President who gives a ....

I suppose the only problem then is, where would they find one?

~~~
jiggy2011
Maybe step 1 is to ditch FPTP and give minority parties a fighting chance?

~~~
mindcrime
Yeah, moving from FPTP to Approval voting or Cordocet voting or something
would be a huge improvement, at least in those terms. It's a tough fight
though. Critics say "oooh, that's too complicated, it'll confuse the voters"
blah, blah. Hell, in NC the SBOE (State Board of Elections) has used "voter
confusion" as justification for policies that historically made it all but
impossible for 3rd party candidates to even get on the ballot.

To give some perspective... in NC, in the modern era, only one 3rd party has
ever achieved ballot access (the Libertarian Party). And until a few years
ago, the rules were rigged to force the LP to constantly recertify through a
long, tedious and expensive petitioning process every election cycle.

When the LP, Green Party and others sued the SBOE, they actually argued that
having "too many candidates on the ballot could confuse voters", despite their
essentially never being more than 3 candidates for any given office. Further,
in most election years many, many races are actually uncontested! But we'll
confuse the voters if we allow the Libertarian Party, Green Party,
Constitution Party, etc. on the ballot. Sheesh.

------
beat
tl;dr

The ACLU is leading a particularly good suit. As a Verizon customer, their
phone records were scanned as well. And as a legal firm handling cases where
even the existence of a call to a lawyer is privileged information (ie govt
whistleblowers), the system is clearly unconstitutional.

------
tjaerv
> "All the way to the legal limit."

Too bad the NSA doesn't observe legal limits.

------
mtgx
I almost wish they didn't do this so soon. Because now the administration
probably won't declassify anything else for fear of getting sued over it. I
think they should've waited a little more for more leaks to come out of the
Guardian and then the public outrage to force them to declassify more. And
_then_ gang up on them in full force.

I'm also awaiting for the PRISM lawsuit, which seems a lot more important than
the phone records one, to me.

------
jacoblyles
Now what will you do when the Supreme Court finds the NSA's programs to be
unconstitutional and they keep doing it anyway?

~~~
unclebucknasty
At that point, it becomes overtly criminal. If, in that event, the law isn't
upheld (i.e. via appropriate punishment), then we will be witnessing the
complete and unquestionable dismantling of our nation.

~~~
jacoblyles
I'll just leave this here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5862676](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5862676)

------
ck2
This is the first time I've seen an article posted on HN with the original
title to start with - and then the title is changed by a mod?

Is it opposite day?

