Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Over Warrantless Wiretapping, Appeal Planned
from the to-be-expected,-but... dept
This comes as no surprise, but is still somewhat disturbing. A lawsuit the EFF was involved in over the federal government's warrantless wiretapping program has been dismissed by the court because it "was not a 'particularized injury' but instead a 'generalized grievance.'" This same issue has been raised before. If the government illegally spies on people, how can you prove it? You can't go to court unless you prove that you were harmed by the action, but as long as the government keeps it secret then you can't know. That's why the one case where the gov't accidentally revealed some info is so important. But, still, in this other case, the EFF plans to appeal noting the ridiculousness of the situation:"The alarming upshot of the court's decision is that so long as the government spies on all Americans, the courts have no power to review or halt such mass surveillance even when it is flatly illegal and unconstitutional," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: legality, warrantless wiretapping
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
America at "war"
Now if there was no war, my understanding is that Government and its operating budgets would be required to shrink, and rights would be restored to its citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: America at "war"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: America at "war"
There's been no declaration of war, so I'm not sure what your point is.
""
So it's a boondoggle war...? But as long as it's citizens believe we're in a state of war, and it's continued to be labeled a war in the press, it remains legitimate in the minds of many.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: America at "war"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: America at "war"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: America at "war"
Right, because Medicaid, Social Security, bailouts, stimuluses, federal subsidies, etc. and the increasing federal takeover of the economy, health care, transportation, education, labor, et. al. are all the result of terrorism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: America at "war"
Right, because Medicaid, Social Security, bailouts, stimuluses, federal subsidies, etc. and the increasing federal takeover of the economy, health care, transportation, education, labor, et. al. are all the result of terrorism.
""
The common thread is actually socializing risk that is normally adopted by the businesses that would provide the named services. As a result of the lingering stigma of 9-11, business has come to expect profit without accepting risk or responsibility, which is in turn has no other place to go than to be subsidized by the state and it's citizens. It's possible that completion of a new WTC would help to remove part of this business mentality and requirement to run every decision up the ladder. However, even this can't get out the door due to politicization, red tape, inability to make a decision, and perhaps by what ground zero continues to indirectly symbolize.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: America at "war"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: America at "war"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: America at "war"
But a technical "state of emergency"? Much, much easier.
Most people don't realize it, but state of emergency powers for the President are significant.
They also tend not to know that America has been in a "State of Emergency" since 1933....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: America at "war"
it's Supposed to be so they can deal with things like natural disasters or wars in a timely manner.
in practice it's used to pass highly unpopular (and often poorly thought out) laws in a the weeks immediately before Christmas without going through the proper process, or even informing the public some times.
on the up side, urgency cannot be perpetual. the MPs have to sleep Sometime, and urgency requires parliament to stay in session until all issues are dealt with (even if that is by deciding that that particular issue is insufficiently urgent).
or at least, that's how i understand it.
buts seriously, 1933? really? that's just weird... and i say that living in a country that still uses English common law. (includes such fun effects as: legally speaking, if you park your car on someone else's property without permission, then leave? it's a cow unless other laws apply due to other factors. *laughs* )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: America at "war"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: America at "war"
Most people don't realize it, but state of emergency powers for the President are significant.
""
Correct, and this was one of the reasons that I liked Candidate Obama. During his campaign, he appeared to have more of a hands-off management style, delegating responsibilities to a local level. This was a 180-degree shift from President Cheney whose paranoid delusions needed everything to be run by his desk, and also controlling the narrative via daily talking points pushed out to friendly propaganda outfits such as Fox News. This may even explain Palin's recent gig at Fox. But somehow, I imagine Congress, as well as certain parts of the administration still believe this needs to occur, and decisions need to be run by the executive office for approval instead of allowing the various departments to make the best judgment calls on the areas of their expertise, and providing briefs. This requires more headroom, which could be resolved by limiting lobbying influence in Washington.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: America at "war"
The United States has been in a CONSTANT technical state of emergency since 1933, giving the President powers otherwise reserved to Congress.
As soon as any President takes office and doesn't immediately declare the state of emergency over (which it should be, as defined by the Farm Bill of 1933), then he's fully corrupt and there is no longer any reason for me to listen to anything else he/she has to say. It amounts to treason in my opinion, and I see no reason why at any time during his administration an emergency existed significant enough to grant him the power to issue Executive Orders.
Executive Orders are extra-constitutional and only became en vogue after the Farm Bill. Since WWII, the number of EOs has exploded, and Bush Jr. issued more EOs than any other President in the history of the country. They are used strictly to circumvent Congress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_(United_States)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: America at "war"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What you don't know...
Like: I didn't know there was an open manhole there--until I fell in, puncturing one lung on that rebar and breaking both legs.
Or: I didn't know there was a sniper round coming at my head at some speed resembling the speed of sound.
Or perhaps: I didn't know holding both wires of my AC outlet would electrocute me...
*sigh* If only.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What you don't know...
Totally OT, but in case you're interested, some rifle rounds exit the barrel (muzzle velocity) at speeds close to mach 3. The speed of sound is 1125 ft/s, and a few rifles fire at around 4000, many around 3000, and lots above 2000.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What you don't know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What you don't know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who can take a wiretap...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who can take a wiretap...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing the point...
Prove you were unlawfully a target, and things get interesting. Watch that other case carefully.
Maybe the courts are just sick of the EFF's whining and dubious grounds. Just now then somehow confabulated a link to the phone records thing. Legally obtained or not, phone records never have and never will be considered wiretapping. There is a legal process that must be followed, but a search warrant was NEVER required to obtain them.
I think the general public is losing interest in what the EFF has to say as well. Been an hour and less than a dozen tinfoil hat wearking kooks have commented so far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing the point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing the point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing the point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exactly. War on terror, not war on citizens. We keep hearing how this is a war on terror, yet citizens are the ones being targeted. Hmmm..almost as if...totally BS excuses for spying are being used...funny that huh?
It's the same BS heard in Congress the other day. In explaining why the Christmas day bomber wasn't on a no-fly list, the excuse used by the DNI (Director of National Intelligence) was that people had been afraid to do so, out of political correctness. That the reason was that people didn't want patdowns of Grandma anymore. Here's the thing.
He's right, and he's wrong. People don't want patdowns of Grandma. What they want are patdowns of guys who buy tickets in cash, one way, and have been reported as potential terrorists to the State Department and the CIA!!!
So at the same time he's trying to give excuses, he's trying to justify pat downs for Grandmas at the airport.
You see what he did there?! It's about harrassment of citizens, to get us to "stay in line". It's repugnant, anti-American, and all to common. By all means however, keep electing people like President Obama, and keep buying the BS.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Blair also said criteria for adding people to the government's "no fly" list was too legalistic and rigid. And he said that in recent years there has been pressure to shrink rather than expand the list because of a cascade of complaints from people getting "hassled" by authorities. "Why are you searching grandmothers?" was a too-common refrain, he said."
See the total BS response there? Grandams getting searched at the airport has NOTHING to do with the standards for the no-fly list. NOT A DAMN THING. It has to do with the list being inaccurate, not the standards for placement on the list. The implied inverse in his statement is that a less rigid standard is needed, AND (here's the kicker) that such lower standards mean that non-terrorists might be mistakenly get extra-screening. In other words "so sorry we're incompetent, but that requires innocent people to get extra scrutiny". Instead of "we'll fix the system". This from the man who is the DIRECTOR of NATIONAL intelligence!!!
Still confident in government people? LOL...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't expect any better from the Chinese. Is it too much to ask better from the US?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The alarming upshot of the court's decision is that so long as the government spies on all Americans, the courts have no power to review or halt such mass surveillance even when it is flatly illegal and unconstitutional," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston
I would have to say that Mr Bankston should probably do a little better groundwork and actually find an individual case to argue. The courts ruled correctly (there is no specific case to argue in front of them). He needs to find a case to argue and then argue it. What was presented here appears to be mostly something that would be put forth as part of a supreme court argument, not a specific case.
The EFF does some really good work, but this is one of those examples where it is just flailing around without a foothold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you can't show something, how would you take it to court?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]