Remember When Supreme Court Rejected Review Of FISA Amendments Act, Because It Was 'Too Speculative' That Plaintiffs Were Being Monitored?
from the can-we-get-a-recount? dept
It really was just a few months ago that the Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit filed by the ACLU, seeking to find the FISA Amendments Act unconstitutional. This is part of the law that is so key to the NSA's surveillance strategy, part of which was revealed over the past few days. The key problem for the Supreme Court was that the plaintiffs didn't have standing, because it was "too speculative" to suggest that the government had monitored their communications. Specifically, the court said that the injury must be "certainly impending." From the ruling:Yet respondents have no actual knowledge of the Government’s §1881a targeting practices. Instead, respondents merely speculate and make assumptions about whether their communications with their foreign contacts will be acquired under §1881a. .... “The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing” standing—and, at the summary judgment stage, such a party “can no longer rest on . . . ‘mere allegations,’ but must ‘set forth’ by affidavit or other evidence ‘specific facts.’”.... Respondents, however, have set forth no specific facts demonstrating that the communications of their foreign contacts will be targeted. Moreover, because §1881a at most authorizes—but does not mandate or direct—the surveillance that respondents fear, respondents’ allegations are necessarily conjectural. .... Simply put, respondents can only speculate as to how the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence will exercise their discretion in determining which communications to target.The court also points out that since the FISA Court could block such an attempt, the plaintiffs would also need to show that the FISC authorized the surveillance.
...even if respondents could show that the Government will seek the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’s authorization to acquire the communications of respondents’ foreign contacts under §1881a, respondents can only speculate as to whether that court will authorize such surveillanceRight. So, given the now leaked documents showing that the FISA Court ordered the data on all phone calls from Verizon, and the further admission from multiple Senators that this program has been happening continuously since at least 2007, perhaps someone should be filing a lawsuit (if they haven't already), and using the latest leaks as proof of standing...
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: faa, fisa amendments act, nsa surveillance, privacy, speculative, supreme court, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The government sent the evidence to people being surveilled before and they still weren't allowed to use it.
Sad day for the US all around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
INVISIBLE BOY
"All my life I've been ignored by people, and finally, after years of being overlooked, I found I have the power to disappear."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://torrentfreak.com/former-u-s-prosecutor-sues-obama-and-nsa-over-prism-scandal-1306 10/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
---
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vGYD
Pardon Edward Snowden
Edward Snowden is a national hero and should be immediately issued a a full, free, and absolute pardon for any crimes he has committed or may have committed related to blowing the whistle on secret NSA surveillance programs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They did!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pardon might not do any good if he's dead
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't necessarily understand 'standing' or agree on it's requirement for large issues like this, but that's our legal system as it stands these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Refile that case: maybe
The SC will promptly give the ACLU a regretful 'bye, it's been nice to see you again."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/07/nsa-verizon-surveillance-constitution? CMP=twt_gu
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It still comes to the same thing
Paul Rand can join Wyman in the grandstand, self-justifying line over there. Rand has a goal of getting elected in 2016, so ANYTHING negative involving the Democrats will be blown sky high in an attempt to curry favor with the voters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It still comes to the same thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It still comes to the same thing
Recording of the actual conversion and using that might pose a bigger problem, and even then... there are times where it is legally acceptable to do.
Basically, it's tempest in a teapot here. The actions appear both to be legal and to be even less than the scope of the law allows. But as with anything political, it's all about positioning and play. Ask Rand Paul, he's working the Wyden playbook on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It still comes to the same thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It still comes to the same thing
Now the 'court order' being used is 'give us all records on everyone'. If that doesn't violate the 4th amendment against unreasonable search, nothing does anymore.
Giving your data to a 3rd party is entirely different than the gov't collecting your data for posterity (whether directly or from said 3rd parties).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It still comes to the same thing
Yes.
Even if it's true (and we have no reason to believe it is) that conversations and communication contents aren't being recorded, that doesn't mean this isn't an incredibly problematic thing. That something could be worse doesn't mean it's not a terrible thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It still comes to the same thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]