dslreports logo
 story category
Supreme Court Kills Challenge to Warrantless Wiretapping
Nonny Nonny, You Can't Prove Nothin'

The Supreme Court this week followed hard party lines in killing off one of the last few legal challenges to the government's warrantless wiretapping efforts. Those efforts, exposed by whistleblowers at AT&T and at the NSA, involve carriers willfully dumping all private citizen voice and data into the lap of the NSA with little to no respect of privacy or wiretap law at the time.

After it was found the government (both Bush and Obama administrations) and carriers were breaking the law, the government began the process of making what they did retroactively legal by -- changing the law, attacking whistleblowers and hiding all program details. After the launch of FISA, they've essentially been playing a game of obfuscation patty cake with the press and civil rights groups.

As many had feared, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision (pdf) this week that argues that citizens can't sue over the warrantless wiretapping program -- because they can't clearly illustrate harm. They're of course unable to show direct harm because the government refuses to be transparent about how it spies on its own civilians, and attacks anyone who tries to change that lack of transparency. As Mike Masnick at Techdirt notes, the whole thing continues to give off an unpleasant odor:
quote:
As we guessed at the time of the oral hearings, it seemed like it was going to be difficult to convince a majority of the court that the plaintiffs had any standing to complain, since they couldn't show that they had been directly impacted. And, indeed the court ruled 5 to 4 that there was no standing here. So, basically, there is simply no way to challenge the constitutionality of warrantless wiretaps. Doesn't that seem like a serious constitutional problem? The government can pass laws that it can spy on people in private, and there's no way to then challenge that law. Oh, and if you happen to discover (by accident!) that you've been spied upon the government can just claim sovereign immunity, and that's it. Case closed.
In short, you can't sue about being wiretapped because you can't prove you were wiretapped -- because the government is hiding all wiretapping information from you. A big win for Joe Public, eh?
view:
topics flat nest 

Mike
Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA

Mike

Mod

It's only illegal if you're caught

You only have a case if you can provide evidence.

Since you can't provide evidence and it's considered secret, no one is talking.

Continue on, citizen.
Gami00
join:2010-03-11
Mississauga, ON

Gami00

Member

Re: It's only illegal if you're caught

Wouldn't it be easier if your Government/Prez just declared Martial Law. That way he doesn't have to bother with you people and all your whining about rights/constitution/privacy...

it would be a much more simpler America !!

it'll be like that movie V, except from the "leader's PoV" instead of the people/rebels.

cdru
Go Colts
MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN

cdru

MVM

Re: It's only illegal if you're caught

said by Gami00:

Wouldn't it be easier if your Government/Prez just declared Martial Law...

As the saying goes, if you put a frog in a boiling pot of water, he'll immediately try to jump out. But if you put him in cold water and slowly heat it until it boils, he'll remain until he cooks himself to death.

Declaring martial law would be like dropping the country in boiling water. There is no way that it would succeed. However since at least 9/11 and perhaps before, the temperature has slowly been rising under the guise of protecting the children. Or fighting the terrorists. Or Iranians. Or whatever the boogyman of the day is.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: It's only illegal if you're caught

said by cdru:

said by Gami00:

Wouldn't it be easier if your Government/Prez just declared Martial Law...

As the saying goes, if you put a frog in a boiling pot of water, he'll immediately try to jump out. But if you put him in cold water and slowly heat it until it boils, he'll remain until he cooks himself to death.

You should choose a different analogy. This one is false:
»www.snopes.com/critters/ ··· boil.asp

cdru
Go Colts
MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN

cdru

MVM

Re: It's only illegal if you're caught

said by FFH5:

You should choose a different analogy. This one is false:
»www.snopes.com/critters/ ··· boil.asp

I'm well aware of that. I can also cite counter examples that show the opposite. Your proof specifically mentions heating the water 2 degrees F per minute. Other examples where the frog did indeed die the water was heated an order of magnitude slower.

Regardless, I never said "As the scientific fact", I said "As the saying goes". "An apple a day keeps the doctor away", "the pen is mightier than the sword", and "a watched pot never boils" all are scientifically false proverbial sayings, yet they illustrate an underlying general truth or lesson.

Iceman0803
join:2012-05-18
Glendale, AZ

Iceman0803 to FFH5

Member

to FFH5

said by FFH5 See Profile
You should choose a different analogy. This one is false:
»www.snopes.com/critters/ ··· boil.asp

I think you missed the point. Here is a line taken from your link:

...the "boiled frog" anecdote serves its purpose whether or not it's based upon something that is literally true.


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

1 recommendation

KrK to cdru

Premium Member

to cdru
Click for full size
Reminds of this, but apparently, it will be even worse. :/
Angrychair
join:2000-09-20
Jacksonville, FL

Angrychair to Gami00

Member

to Gami00
The republicans practically are attempting this sort of thing in a very underhanded way. They're attempting to change voting laws to make it possible for them to win elections even when they dramatically lose. See the scheme they're attempting to implement in Virginia.

Note these schemes are only being implemented in states Republicans control where the laws would help them to shave electoral college votes away from Democratic candidates, not in states where Republicans are solidly in control and expect to win in virtual perpetuity.

TheHelpful1
Premium Member
join:2002-01-11
Upper Marlboro, MD

TheHelpful1

Premium Member

Re: It's only illegal if you're caught

said by Angrychair:

The republicans practically are attempting this sort of thing in a very underhanded way. They're attempting to change voting laws to make it possible for them to win elections even when they dramatically lose. See the scheme they're attempting to implement in Virginia.

This is really off topic of warrantless wire tapping, but Pot meet kettle. This door swings both ways so have a look here: »articles.baltimoresun.co ··· district

"At that time, and with the benefit of popular incumbent Republican moderates Bob Ehrlich and Connie Morella, the Republicans held a surprising four of the state's eight seats. In a decidedly "blue" state, Democrats were frustrated by the evenly split delegation."

Basically if you are a republican in MD, don't bother voting because from the electoral college on down, it won't matter for anything because of how far Democrats have shifted this state in their favor. Not to mention the Washington Post releasing a "poll" that says 80% of MD residents are in favor of fingerprinting just to own a firearm and the last two questions of this poll show that 80% of the respondents don't own a firearm to begin with and are 40% democratic (20% were republican and the rest were independent).

If we required finger printing, photo ID and annual renewal charges for the right to Vote, how many people in MD would be OK with that? None since most illegals vote democrat and mandating a voter ID law would pretty much mean their voting base would be decimated.
Angrychair
join:2000-09-20
Jacksonville, FL

Angrychair

Member

Re: It's only illegal if you're caught

Wow, that's quite a bit of ignorance and venom for only 206 words.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK to TheHelpful1

Premium Member

to TheHelpful1
said by Angrychair:

None since most illegals vote democrat and mandating a voter ID law would pretty much mean their voting base would be decimated.

Illegals don't vote.

It's right up there with the "Everyone on Welfare votes Democrat."
Well, this is Oklahoma, as Red as it gets, and 25% on the population receive direct Government assistance of some kind or another, and that's not counting the people claiming EIC and other handouts.

The reality is, that many types of people believe in "Sticking it to the Gub'mint" and that most people on welfare don't vote at all.

meeeeeeeeee
join:2003-07-13
Newburgh, NY

meeeeeeeeee

Member

Re: It's only illegal if you're caught

Most people (period) don't vote. What's the point? The Party gives you a choice of candidate A or candidate B, both of which are only interested in making themselves and their "friends" richer, and screwing you.
tired_runner
Premium Member
join:2000-08-25
CT

1 recommendation

tired_runner to Mike

Premium Member

to Mike
With the advent of domestic terrorism, it's a disgusting but necessary evil. The founding fathers would be pissed at both sides for sure.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer

Premium Member

Re: It's only illegal if you're caught

Ummm, you are ignoring the possibility of domestic terrorism being caused by such totalitarian methods; much like our foreign policy is a source of international terrorism.

Necessary evil? Funny, I am sure that's exactly what the terrorists think too. I find it strange that so much of the behavior we used to criticize Communist Russia for (that would NEVER happen in a free country!) is now commonplace in the US.

Not only is this NOT necessary, it should not be accepted or tolerated.
tired_runner
Premium Member
join:2000-08-25
CT
·Frontier FiberOp..

tired_runner

Premium Member

Re: It's only illegal if you're caught

I'm not for domestic espionage any more than I am for Bloomie's dumbass large-sized soft drink ban, and it is instrusive. But the enemy does tend to camouflage itself to appear just like me and you. The digital age has made it easier.

I think my biggest gripe is that they're likely not monitoring the ones who need to be.
Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT

Rekrul

Member

Re: It's only illegal if you're caught

said by tired_runner:

I'm not for domestic espionage any more than I am for Bloomie's dumbass large-sized soft drink ban, and it is instrusive. But the enemy does tend to camouflage itself to appear just like me and you. The digital age has made it easier.

Yeah, we have to lock up those stinking Jap spies! I mean we need to ferret out those damn commies! Wait, who are we spying now?
tired_runner
Premium Member
join:2000-08-25
CT

tired_runner

Premium Member

Re: It's only illegal if you're caught

We should be spying on the likes of Adam Lanza. We should stop being reactive... ie: stupid tighter gun controls that accomplish more harm than good because people are upset about a psycho with a gun... and become more preventive.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer

Premium Member

Re: It's only illegal if you're caught

said by tired_runner:

We should be spying on the likes of Adam Lanza. We should stop being reactive... ie: stupid tighter gun controls that accomplish more harm than good because people are upset about a psycho with a gun... and become more preventive.

I don't think Lanza would have been helped by a surveillance state. The clues were already there, it was obvious that he had social problems. Do you think he was talking to people about his upcoming spree on his cellphone? Even if he was (and was caught) the system is for prosecution, not for psychological intervention. The system isn't used proactively at all, as a matter of fact, they simply go the database to obtain evidence to use against someone for whatever crime they are being charged with.
tired_runner
Premium Member
join:2000-08-25
CT
·Frontier FiberOp..

tired_runner

Premium Member

Re: It's only illegal if you're caught

Therein lies one of the problems. The judicial system has become more focused on warehousing accused criminals by the bulk, however petty the offense may be or if at all, than it is about addressing problems with real solutions.

It doesn't help at all that the NYPD seems to continually put badges on morons to supposedly keep the streets safe.

Be Good
@wideopenwest.com

Be Good to tired_runner

Anon

to tired_runner
So, when an elected officials swears to the oath, what exactly is he defending? Seems to me that the government could care less about the constitution except when they deem it necessary to protect their position.

Mike
Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA

Mike

Mod

Re: It's only illegal if you're caught

Tada!

meeeeeeeeee
join:2003-07-13
Newburgh, NY

1 edit

meeeeeeeeee to Be Good

Member

to Be Good

U.S. Constitution
The Amerikan Government LOVES The Constitution!!! They think it is soft and absorbent.

Osama WON. He destroyed AmeriCa.

captnhook
join:2001-02-20
NY

captnhook to tired_runner

Member

to tired_runner
said by tired_runner:

With the advent of domestic terrorism...

One man's domestic terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
I wonder if America's founding fathers would be labeled domestic terrorists if they existed in today's world. I guess it all depends on ones point of view. One thing that isn't debatable is the trampling of our Constitution (and thus the rights and protections we citizen's are afforded by it) by this ruling.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK to Mike

Premium Member

to Mike
Everything is just fine.

Now please return to your homes and spend money like good little consumers.

TheHelpful1
Premium Member
join:2002-01-11
Upper Marlboro, MD

TheHelpful1

Premium Member

Re: It's only illegal if you're caught

^Is that moss growing on his shirt???

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK

Premium Member

Re: It's only illegal if you're caught

said by TheHelpful1:

^Is that moss growing on his shirt???

LOL, you mean the microphones?
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to Mike

Premium Member

to Mike
The terrorists won, It is that simple. I mean think about it, They do the worst act in US history and then the country slowly works towards lockdown in the name of stopping the evil evil terrorists.

The justice department of course has the perfect trifecta of keywords. Stopping terrorism, protect the children, end online piracy.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Sounds about right

I am not sure we can actually sum up the governmental screwing we are getting any better than what was stated in the last sentence.

In short, you can't sue about being wiretapped because you can't prove you were wiretapped -- because the government is hiding all wiretapping information from you.
Clearly this was a political decision that had nothing to do with the constitution or the "we the people".
Wilsdom
join:2009-08-06

Wilsdom

Member

Re: Sounds about right

The people get the government they deserve. I'm not sure about the Court's legal logic, but almost 120 million Americans support the Wiretapping Party, and who are 9 justices to disagree? Bush and Obama should have been impeached and imprisoned...Americans instead re-elected them.

captnhook
join:2001-02-20
NY

captnhook

Member

Re: Sounds about right

said by Wilsdom:

The people get the government they deserve...

Secretary of State John Kerry "In America you have a right to be stupid - if you want to be"
mdlund0
join:2011-08-02
Lawrence, KS

mdlund0

Member

The point?

I suppose I'm not sure what the point of the whole thing is. The NSA is listening, and I think most of us agree that we don't like the government listening. But they're doing NOTHING with all the information... that's the crux of this decision: no one has been impacted. What's the point of a lawsuit where no one was harmed? What's the point of spending billions of dollars to collect information that will never be used? What's the point of all this trouble?

•••
easonin
Rock Ridge, FL
join:2008-07-08

easonin

Member

AMERICA!

F**K YEAH!
Lick them boots subject!
Greatest. Country. Ever.
TechnoGeek
join:2013-01-07

TechnoGeek

Member

Violating the Constitution is not harmful?

Really?

Wow, so would they say it's okay for say Texas to declare its independence from the USA because that does not cause harm to anyone? Oh right, it's only the Federal government that can violate the constitution as long as harm is not proved. However, Aaron Schwartz would have a different story to tell.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

Re: Violating the Constitution is not harmful?

In your opinion it's violating the Constitution. In the opinion of both houses of Congress (bipartisan, approved the FISA act many times) and the President (bipartisan, both Bush and Obama signed the act and its amendments), it's not. And the Supreme Court has let stand several rulings against Constitutional challenges (and the EFF and ACLU have tried every variation of lawsuit they could think of).

And now, this one has been shot down too. It wasn't a Constitutional challenge, it was suing for damages.

When will you admit your opinion is just wrong?
old_wiz_60
join:2005-06-03
Bedford, MA

old_wiz_60

Member

Judges...

are not going to rule against the spooks. The SCOTUS answers to the government, so how could they rule against the government? The SCOTUS is no longer a fan of the "Constitution", whatever that is. Ruling against the spooks wouldn't even help since the spooks don't care if what they are doing is legal or not.

•••••
DaveSin
join:2009-07-17

DaveSin

Member

What?

The next time a group of planes or god forbid, a small nuclear device is denoted in "downtown", we will be free to discuss the merits of the privacy of our communications. If you are not involve in illegal activities, why worry about privacy? I certainly doesn't care who wants to listen in on my "private" communication since I would be a fool to be discussing anything remotely illegal on the Telephone or any other medium of electronic communications.

•••

WHT
join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX

WHT

Member

You can't prove you were wiretapped?

Why can't a subscriber file a lawsuit and in the per-trial discovery process ask for evidence.

Twaddle
@sbcglobal.net

Twaddle

Anon

Re: You can't prove you were wiretapped?

They will IGNORE anyone or any court, attorney or even Congress. Bottom line you will not be allowed to bring a suit or require the Govt to do anything on this subject unless you are a bigger bad-ass than the Might of the joint armed forces as well as the CIA, FBI and "others"

WiseOldBear
Laissez les bons temps rouler!
Premium Member
join:2001-11-25
Litchfield Park, AZ

WiseOldBear

Premium Member

Constitution, We Don't Need No Stinking Constitution

US Supremes: "we be de big dogs, we don't need to interpret the Constitution, we simply write it to fit our personal biases."

Arrogant assHxxes
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

Commentary

"The Supreme Court this week followed hard party lines in killing off one of the last few legal challenges to the government's warrantless wiretapping efforts. Those efforts, exposed by whistleblowers at AT&T and at the NSA, involve carriers willfully dumping all private citizen voice and data into the lap of the NSA with little to no respect of privacy or wiretap law at the time."

They are not warrantless. The FISA court issues warrants under the guidelines of the FISA act. Congress reviews the details periodically (in secret).

You have no idea what the NSA is or is not gathering, much less what they are doing with it, under what oversight. Somebody saw some cables, that's all you know.

"After it was found the government (both Bush and Obama administrations) and carriers were breaking the law, the government began the process of making what they did retroactively legal by -- changing the law, attacking whistleblowers and hiding all program details. After the launch of FISA, they've essentially been playing a game of obfuscation patty cake with the press and civil rights groups."

Um, what? What laws were bring broken, exactly? And what exactly was made "retroactively legal"? That is not what happened. You are probably referring to the telco immunity amendment. It had zero to do with lawbreaking, except inasmuch as it specifically excluded illegal activities from the immunity. Rather, it provided a shield against punitive civil suits for this very specific area where the government needed the telcos help, much like the government itself is shielded.

Attacking whistleblowers? When did I miss that one? Unless you're referring to someone who puts a massive dump of classified information in the hands of our enemies as a "whistleblower".

"As many had feared, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision (pdf) this week that argues that citizens can't sue over the warrantless wiretapping program -- because they can't clearly illustrate harm. They're of course unable to show direct harm because the government refuses to be transparent about how it spies on its own civilians, and attacks anyone who tries to change that lack of transparency."

Repeating falsehoods like "warrantless wiretapping" doesn't make them true.

How exactly is the government supposed to be "more transparent" without giving away exactly the information that the people they are trying to catch would love to have? It's classified for a reason.

Snakeoil
Ignore Button. The coward's feature.
Premium Member
join:2000-08-05
united state

Snakeoil

Premium Member

*shrugs* Big deal.

This is what the sheep want, this is what the sheep get.

Nothing I can do about it.