Skip to main content

View Diary: ACLU sues White House over 'dragnet' data collection (113 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Maybe (18+ / 0-)

    Here's what the ACLU says about that, in the blog post on this filing.

    The kind of personal-data aggregation accomplished through Section 215 also constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Last year, in a case on GPS tracking by police, five members of the Supreme Court indicated support for the common-sense notion that government collection of individual bits of seemingly innocuous personal information over a long period of time could amount to such a complete invasion of privacy that it would be unconstitutional. The surveillance program that came to light with the release of the FISC order constitutes precisely that kind of unreasonable incursion into Americans' private lives.

    "The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. [...] There would be no place to hide."--Frank Church

    by Joan McCarter on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 02:23:38 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  The financial blogs were trending towards (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi

      calling Snowden a hero.  

      I reckon that that's because government intrusions into banking and finance transactions is not particularly popular on Wall Street.

      One wonders if there might be some financial institutions that also decide to file suit claiming that they have suffered lost business with foreign investors as a result of this revelation.  The financial markets in the top hubs are very sensitive about what competitive markets are able to do to attract foreign investment and disadvantages put in place by governments are not taken kindly or lightly, at all.

      This  Verizon warrant might just make things very interesting - and while Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas might be inclined to block the ACLU, they might just sit up and listen to complaints were they to come from Wall Street.

      •  Financial trading often relies on secrecy (0+ / 0-)

        Very, very much so -- it gives you your trading advantage and is often the basis of making money.  The "general warrants" scoop of all their data is going to infuriate the financial traders.  Even more so than the people in other businesses.

        This is a business where "who I talked to when" can cause billion-dollar moves in the market, or make or break deals.

        Although the majority of businessmen are going to be infuriated by the unconstitutional NSA spying.  Commercial data security is an extremely important matter to a lot of businesses.

    •  Not exactly what Jones holds, or even what the (0+ / 0-)

      5 justices said.  But its not an illogical extension of it.

      OTOH, the holding of US v. Jones rests as much on classic trespass law for 4 justices iirc (you trespassed on my property when you touched it by putting the bug on it) and classic application of the 'reasonable expectation of privacy' doctrine for the rest of the majority.  

      Sontemayor's (iirc) concurrence does get into all this 'survelliance' stuff, but it didn't 5 justices didn't sign off on that, so I;m skeptical.

      OTOH, Scalia is unpredictable with regard to the 4th, so who knows.  He'll certainly want to give Obama a blackeye...

    •  Sounds like someone... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      helfenburg, cybersaur, aliasalias

      ... actually read the Fourth Amendment.

      Amendment IV
      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
      The Fourth stipulates specificity of probable cause, descriptions, and itemization, and this must be done under oath... otherwise NO warrants shall be issued.

      In other words, What is the probable cause, Which laws seem to have been broken, Who is under suspicion, What dates, times, locations and types of communication for said specific person(s) are requested, Where are each located, and Why is this warrant needed?

      That means this general "vacuum sucking up every communication to/from anyone just in case it might find one or two illegal activities going on" is totally in violation of the Fourth Amendment.  There's no specificity,  no probable cause, no itemization as stipulated in the wording of the Fourth Amendment.

      If SCOTUS does not find the current hoovering of ALL data totally unconstitutional and illegal, I'd vote they be impeached and/or forced to resign and replaced with justices who have some common sense, a good level of reading comprehension, and a modicum of understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

      I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

      by NonnyO on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 03:34:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Impeach Diane Feinstein while you're at it. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NonnyO, PALiberal1, WheninRome

        The elevation of appearance over substance, of celebrity over character, of short term gains over lasting achievement displays a poverty of ambition. It distracts you from what's truly important. - Barack Obama

        by helfenburg on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 03:59:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't know if she can be impeached... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          aliasalias

          But the people who voted for her can certainly check their state law and see what recourse they have between demanding her resignation or recalling her.  She was just re-elected recently for the umpteenth time, so it's probably going to be difficult to get rid of her.

          [I'm not a resident of California, so the best I can do is just complain that she's wrong, wrong, wrong in what she has been saying about how she doesn't believe our rights have been violated (oh, yes, they have!) and her patronizingly telling us we have nothing to worry about (oh, yes, we do!).]

          I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

          by NonnyO on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 04:14:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  It's illegal (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NonnyO

        Doesn't this all harken back to the scene in the hospital where Ashcroft was ill and Comey refused to sign off on the "warrantless wiretapping" program? I wonder if blanket acquisition of phone records being a gross violation of the Fourth Amendment was part of that reticence.

        +++ The law is a weapon used to bludgeon us peasants into submission. It is not to be applied to the monied elite.

        by cybersaur on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 05:13:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's how I'm reading it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WheninRome

          The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written with all classes of people in mind, from those who could not read or write but were nonetheless intelligent and had an average understanding of the meaning of the words they used in everyday conversation, to those with a grade school education, to those with a college education.  (Some illiterate people had been soldiers in the Revolutionary War; just because they had no 'book learning' didn't mean they were stupid.)

          The beauty of our Founding Documents is that they ARE so easily understood by everyone because the language is very simple and very clear.  No legalese loopholes or exclusions or exceptions like laws written nowadays..., but our Founding Documents have just plain everyday language written in a perfectly legible manner so that anyone can comprehend it.

          Plus which, our Founding Documents were never written with the idea of having one public government and one "secret government" in the shadows managing the public part of government like what has developed since 2000.  Nothing in our Founding Documents provides for "secret interpretations" of ANY of our laws, nor any pretzel logic or twisted legalese to try to make laws and treaties say the opposite of what's stated so clearly: no torture - torture is a war crime..., it's all in our laws and treaties incorporated into the Constitution as the law of the land.  The Founding Documents were all written to be published on broadsheets in the town square and/or in newspapers - zero secrets for running the government.

          Virtually all our "secrets" make their way to being published in newspapers and magazines and books as soon as journalists get ahold of them, so there's really not that much that's actually secret..., nor should there be many secrets.  Certainly there should never be some of the secrets they have now, and our own government illegally and unconstitutionally spying on us without warrants or just cause is one of the biggest open secrets we've had to deal with since 2000.

          Much is made of "how we gave up our rights for security after 9/11."

          Wrong.

          I don't know about anyone else, but 1) no one asked me if I wanted to willingly give up my rights for fear of the ter'rists; and 2) my answer would have been "Hell, No!" if I'd been asked.  At our most vulnerable is not the time to voluntarily give up our rights; it's a time to hang on to them for dear life because they are the only common ground we have.

          Our rights were taken away from us by a bunch of scared Cretinous Congress Critters.  THEY were the ones who took away our rights WITHOUT our consent because THEY were the ones who were afraid.  They STILL try to scare us senseless by justifying their illegal and unconstitutional actions by saying "the ter'rist boogeymen are coming!"

          Uuuuummmm... No.  How many people have been killed so far this year in this country by common criminals (elevated to superhuman gigantic status by mislabeling them as "terrorists")?  Now..., how many have been killed by drunk or inattentive drivers or reckless drivers?  How many have been killed by handguns and gang violence?  How many people have died by other means that are natural causes (as a result of old age, cancer, other fatal illnesses)?  The smallest number will still be that of people killed by "ter'rists."  We have more to fear from drunk and inattentive drivers than we do from "ter'rists."

          I want us to all have all of our constitutional rights back and illegal and unconstitutional laws repealed in their entirety.  There was just quite simply NO good reason to enact "temporary" laws to take away our rights, and worse, extend those temporary illegal and unconstitutional laws, unless our gub'mint officials wanted us to get used to not having our rights so it would be easy for them to permanently take away our rights and change the constitution at some point in the future.

          Knowing we are being spied upon, and to what extent, and getting pissed about it is good.  We just might be able to regain our full constitutional rights.... As long as we are on a roll, we need to push to repeal the unconstitutional and illegal laws that "temporarily" took away our rights WITHOUT our consent.

          I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

          by NonnyO on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 08:41:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Phone records (0+ / 0-)

      I've read about what can be done with phone records alone. It's nothing short of stunning. They really can build an incredibly accurate picture of your relationships with other people and groups based on call records alone. Scary when you consider there's only six degrees of separation between any given person and Osama bin Laden.

      +++ The law is a weapon used to bludgeon us peasants into submission. It is not to be applied to the monied elite.

      by cybersaur on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 05:07:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •   but they have to get a warrant to do that (0+ / 0-)
        •  Kinda. A FISA approval ain't (0+ / 0-)

          much of a bar . . .

          "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

          by bryduck on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 10:06:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  They're claiming a "general warrant" is enough (0+ / 0-)

          Read the FISA "court order".  It claims to be a warrant to collect everyone's data, no specificity.

          They're claiming that that's enough.

          This is of course an explicit Fourth Amendment violation -- as NonnyO mentions above -- and everyone involved in this unconstitutional spying belongs in prison, or possibly executed for treason.  But they're doing it anyway.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site