|
USSCrules
Anon
2014-Jan-3 8:57 am
Metadata remain legal with current makeup of Supreme CourtIf no one dies or retires before this gets to USSC, metadata collection will remain legal in a 5-4 decision. This kind of decision is purely political, as are most USSC decisions. I hope no one actually believes the USSC looks at the law and the Constitution and that is how they decide cases. They decide a case based on politics, then use a bunch of law clerks to backup that political decision with legal precedent which can always support any decision on either side of a case. | |
|
| |
Re: Metadata remain legal with current makeup of Supreme CourtIt may be 6-3 or higher. Both sides don't seem to have a problem with this behavior so it may be higher. | |
|
| KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ
1 recommendation |
to USSCrules
People's United case proved how far out of touch with reality the SCOTUS is. So yes I agree they will rule in favor of the NSA as well. | |
|
| CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture Premium Member join:2011-08-11 NYC |
to USSCrules
When you use 'metadata' as a blanket statement meaning third-party data then I would agree, the USSC would continue to find no right to privacy in information shared with a third party. Telephone metadata (which the case is about), however, is specifically subjected to rules of probable cause under the ECPA. Pauley instead ignores the ECPA and goes on at length about the Stored Communications act which is more related to email gathering, not telephone call records. He also states that since telephony metadata is subject to disclosure by other subpoenas and court orders, there is nothing wrong here. He completely ignores that the other subpoenas and court orders require individual suspicion. His decision does not have solid legal footing, instead he dances around the issues to find the government 'in the right'.
If the USSC makes a decision based in law and legal precedent there is no doubt they would find mass telephony meta-data collection illegal. If they instead make a political decision as you suggest and ignore the law like Pauley did, then we have already lost our country to the enemy. | |
|
| |
USSCrules to USSCrules
Anon
2014-Jan-3 2:55 pm
to USSCrules
While the ACLU was appealing their loss over NSA data collection. The US govt is appealing their loss on the same subject in a different district court. Eventually the USSC will have to resolve conflicting lower court rulings. » www.reuters.com/article/ ··· 20140103 | |
|
TechyDad Premium Member join:2001-07-13 USA |
TechyDad
Premium Member
2014-Jan-3 10:20 am
LoopholeSo basically the government can monitor everything about a bunch of citizens so long as said monitoring isn't being done by the government but by a private company that the government is requiring to monitor people. Or so long as said private company is already monitoring people and the government is just ordering them to give them access to this information without any warrant. It's not the government tracking you so it's perfectly legal!
Next up, you have the right to free speech, but you just can't say anything you want via any ISP that the government has ordered to restrict speech on. After all, it's not a First Amendment violation if the government orders someone else to restrict the speech, right? | |
|
|
I'm surprisedThe ACLU has been very quite about all this, if it was something about Christmas trees or gays they would have been all over it. | |
|
| JakCrow join:2001-12-06 Palo Alto, CA
1 recommendation |
Re: I'm surprisedHow, in your imagination, was the aclu "very quiet about all this"? | |
|
| WHT join:2010-03-26 Rosston, TX |
to Corehhi
Christmas trees don't have civil rights. | |
|
| | |
Re: I'm surprisedsaid by WHT:Christmas trees don't have civil rights. Yes but non Christians may be offended by a Christmas tree. | |
|
| | | |
|
Parry
Anon
2014-Jan-5 6:30 pm
Sounds like absolute MonarchyYou're appealing to the King... Don't be shocked with the response. Just be glad they don't do summary executions of complainers (and their family/neighborhoods) anymore. | |
|
|
|