DOJ Agrees To Release Redacted Court Ruling About How NSA Practices Violated The 4th Amendment
from the transparency! dept
You may recall that last year it was revealed that the FISA court (FISC) had determined that certain searches by the NSA under the section 702 program of the FISA Amendments Act were unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment. As we noted just this morning, it appears that the NSA's justification for spying on Americans is related to this ruling. Ever since that secret ruling was announced, the EFF has been asking the government for a copy of it, via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process. The DOJ has fought very very hard against releasing this ruling, claiming that it would put us all in danger:The government has determined that disclosure of the information withheld from Plaintiff could result in exceptionally grave and serious damage to the national security. Plaintiff obviously cannot contend otherwise. The Court accordingly should defer to the government’s determination in this case, uphold the Department’s withholdings, and grant this motion.Except, today, during President Obama's press conference, the DOJ suddenly (magically!) changed its position and filed a motion with the court saying that it will no longer fight this, but instead will release a redacted version of the FISC ruling later this month, claiming that recent declassifications by the federal government mean this is now acceptable.
Defendant further provides notice to the Court and Plaintiff that it has determined it will release to Plaintiff a redacted version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (“FISC”) opinion previously withheld in full pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(1) and (b)(3), and a redacted version of the one responsive paragraph in the classified white paper to Congress also previously withheld in full pursuant to those exemptions. The information to be released to Plaintiff will consist of segregable information that the government has declassified and thus is no longer exempt under (b)(1) and (b)(3).The filing also requests a bit more time to handle all of this, but it appears that revealing at least a little bit of info from this key ruling will no longer kill us all. And now we wait to see just how much is actually revealed... and how much is redacted.
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, fisc, foia, nsa, nsa surveillance, surveillance
Companies: eff
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Prediction: Entirely redacted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prediction: Entirely redacted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prediction: Entirely redacted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prediction: Entirely redacted
Which pretty much refutes the concept that the information would have caused harm. It was simply that they didn't want to release it - which isn't a legal reason for it to be classified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Place your bets!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
████████████` 08;████████████ We find ██████████████&# 9608;████
this ████████████ program ██████████████&# 9608;█ ██████████████&# 9608;█
████████████&# 9608;██ █████████████ █████████████ does ███████
███████ not ██████████████ violate ████████████ ███████████
███ █████████ ███████████ the █████████████ ██████████████
4th amendment. ██████████████&# 9608;███ █████████████
See!, We told you so!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How much is revealed
Not much.
"and how much is redacted."
Pretty much everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear EFF,
Redacted, ------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------Redacted,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Director: "Quick! Dismantle the Constitution and spy on every American! That'll show 'em!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love how, even when you're more transparency as you would like, you're still a whiny little angry bitch.
Love,
AJ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Second, what the government says it will do, and what it really does do, are historically not in agreement. We will wait to see the follow-through, but we aren't going to hold our breath.
Stop being a whiny bitch about people exercising their rights and discussing their disgust with the actions of the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Redacted defined as..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just took a massive dose of the spice Melange and am searching the most probable futures........I can safely predict the answers are: a little and a lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Plaintiff obviously cannot contend otherwise."
Holy hell. "We made this secret. It is secret because we say so. There is a very good reason for it to be secret, but that reason is also secret. Everyone should just shut up and trust us, even though you have no reason to. There is no way to prove that anything we are doing is untrustworthy, because we have made all such proof secret."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]