dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2014-01-03 08:38:41: As expected, the ACLU is filing an appeal after a Judge recently ruled that the agency's wholesale collection of metadata was legal. ..


USSCrules
@comcast.net

USSCrules

Anon

Metadata remain legal with current makeup of Supreme Court

If 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.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

Re: Metadata remain legal with current makeup of Supreme Court

It may be 6-3 or higher. Both sides don't seem to have a problem with this behavior so it may be higher.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

1 recommendation

Kearnstd to USSCrules

Premium Member

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_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer to USSCrules

Premium Member

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
@comcast.net

USSCrules to USSCrules

Anon

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

Loophole

So 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?

Corehhi
join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC

Corehhi

Member

I'm surprised

The 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

JakCrow

Member

Re: I'm surprised

How, in your imagination, was the aclu "very quiet about all this"?

WHT
join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX

WHT to Corehhi

Member

to Corehhi
Christmas trees don't have civil rights.

Corehhi
join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC

Corehhi

Member

Re: I'm surprised

said by WHT:

Christmas trees don't have civil rights.

Yes but non Christians may be offended by a Christmas tree.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS

MVM

Re: I'm surprised

said by Corehhi:

Yes but non Christians may be offended by a Christmas tree.

And some Christians, as well; something about Pagan symbology.

Parry
@comcast.net

Parry

Anon

Sounds like absolute Monarchy

You'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.