DOJ Argues Secret Ruling Over Secret Unconstitutional Surveillance Must Remain Secret Because It's Secret
from the and,-you-know,-it's-secret dept
About a year ago, after a lot of pressure from Senator Ron Wyden, the government finally admitted (late on a Friday) that, yes, indeed some of its surveillance efforts had been found unconstitutional for violating the 4th Amendment. But they didn't explain what, nor did they reveal the FISA court ruling which made that assessment. Since that time, the EFF has been fighting the government to get it to reveal the ruling. The DOJ refused to release it following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, and later said that even if it wanted to, it can't release the document, because only the FISA Court (FISC) could release it. But, in an earlier ruling in a different case filed by the ACLU seeking to reveal a FISC ruling, FISC had said that FISC couldn't reveal it, and the ACLU needed to seek the document from the DOJ. In other words, both the DOJ and FISC are pointing fingers at each other, saying that only the other one can reveal the document. In response, the EFF has asked for confirmation from FISC that if a district court rules against the DOJ and tells it to release the document, that FISC will actually do so.Now, the DOJ is fighting back with the most circular and ridiculous logic imaginable:
In its response filed with the FISC today, the government offers a circular argument, asserting that only the Executive Branch can de-classify the opinion, but that it is somehow prohibited by the FISC rules from doing so.Basically, the finger pointing continues. However, considering the increasing concern about vast government surveillance, it certainly seems like the government should start looking into being a hell of a lot more transparent, and it could start by giving up this game and releasing that FISC ruling.
The government’s argument is guaranteed to make heads spin. DOJ earlier argued that it lacks discretion to release the FISC opinion without the FISC's consent, but DOJ now argues that if the FISC were to agree with EFF, “the consequence would be that the Government could release the opinion or any portion of it in its discretion.” But FISC material is classified solely because the Executive Branch demands that it be, so release of the opinion has always been a matter of Executive discretion.
Frankly, it’s difficult to understand what DOJ is saying. The Government seems to have a knee-jerk inclination towards secrecy, one that often – as in this case – simply defies logic. The government's bottom line is this: their rules trump the public's statutory rights. But it's not the province of the Executive branch to determine which rights citizens get to assert.
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: 4th amendment, doj, eff, fisa court, fisc, foia, nsa surveillance, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
/circlejerk
I've never seen such an organization troll so professionally...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I haven't seen you this excited in a while. I'm happy for ya. I know how great this all is for a government hater like yourself. Milk it, baby! Milk it! Milk it for all it's worth!!! Spread that FUD! Spread that hate! Yea!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Please keep in mind...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
He's calling out terrible arguments from people who are using every trick in the book to avoid letting people realise what they've been spending tax payer money on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
However, as you want nothing better than to troll TD without contributing to the conversation, you must be a sad and frustrated little man.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
- Interesting, which court?
Sorry, that's secret. But we have evidence...
- Show me, so I can defend myself!
Sorry, secret too.
- By which method did you get this stuff?
Again, sorry, that's secret.
- And now about your punishment...
Is that a drone I hear outside...?
- Yup, that's secret too. But soon it won't matter for you anymore...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Then the trolls claim Mike hates the goverment with no supporting evidence whatsoever.
LOL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Admit they were wrong, never!
That would require them to admit they were wrong and that will never happen.
Our only hope is that some FISC clerk/judge will be a good American patriot and leak this information.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike, apply your Google standard: "no evidence of real harm",
Mike can't be consistent that surveillance is universally bad because he's pro-Google. He can only keep avoiding the obvious similarities -- and that's QUITE difficult after explicit "leaks" that NSA has direct access into Google.
But on the up side, we've gone how many hours now without a Prenda law item?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Best idea ever!
Tell them "we're going to keep spying because nobody has the authority to stop us".
Yeah, that'll go over well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Feel free to roam off topic and use it and any other topic as an excuse to bash TD, it only makes you look shortsighted and stupid. I take it you are not concerned with an overreaching government?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-t echdirt.shtml#c1210
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mike, apply your Google standard: "no evidence of real harm",
FOAD, shithead...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
First [redracted] enemy and now this
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Secrets
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"A release involving the disclosure of some parts of a FISC opinion while concealing other parts creates a substantial risk of public misunderstanding or confusion regarding this Court's decision or reasoning."
As opposed to the current situation?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Even Chinese Citizens want more info
http://qz.com/92632/chinese-internet-users-edward-snowden-nsa-prism-surveillance/
Score one for global democracy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Even Chinese Citizens want more info
We can put him on eBay! Well, I guess we can put him on eBay.uk or something. A US company may lose it's funding sources and credit card processing providers if they get involved.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just Lowery being Lowery.
Nothing to see here.
Move along.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There is lots and lots of room to dislike these things and complain about them without being shrill and wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Y u no debate me?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mike, apply your Google standard: "no evidence of real harm",
That's just fantastic, Blue and I'm so very glad you're with us. Your total comprehension skills are world class.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Scary...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is drinking alcohol moral?
Is it moral to deny education unless you have big bucks to pay for all the copyright licenses?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Copyright in the US is an economic right, not a moral one."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't forget, our morals are derived from THE LAW!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]