dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
ACLU Appeals NSA Metadata Ruling
by Karl Bode 08:38AM Friday Jan 03 2014
As expected, the ACLU is filing an appeal after a Judge recently ruled that the agency's wholesale collection of metadata was legal. Judge William H Pauley III argued that Fourth Amendment protections don't apply to records held by third parties, like phone companies, therefore invalidating the ACLU's (a Verizon customer) claims. "The government has a legitimate interest in tracking the associations of suspected terrorists, but tracking those associations does not require the government to subject every citizen to permanent surveillance,” said the ACLU in a statement. Given other recent court opinions that such collection does violate the Fourth Amendment, the case will likely ultimately wind its way to the Supreme Court.

view:
topics flat nest 

USSCrules

@comcast.net

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

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.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

1 recommendation

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.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
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
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/2014/01/ ··· 20140103

Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA

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?
--
-Jason Levine

Corehhi

join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC

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

Re: I'm surprised

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

WHT

join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5
Christmas trees don't have civil rights.

Corehhi

join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC
Reviews:
·Hargray Cable

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
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

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.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Parry

@comcast.net

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.