Appeals Court rules NSA bulk collection of domestic data is illegal

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

I'm sure they'll stop immediately...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/05/07/404898259/federal-court-bulk-collection-of-phone-metadata-is-illegal

The National Security Agency's practice of collecting data about Americans' telephone calls in bulk goes beyond what Congress intended when it wrote Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday.

The three-judge panel was asked to consider whether the program violated the Constitution. Instead, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel punted on the constitutional claim, deciding the program was simply not authorized by federal law.

One of the big reasons it is hard to discern congressional intent in this case, the court wrote, is because the bulk collection program has been shrouded in secrecy. So it cannot "reasonably be said" that Congress OK'd "a program of which many members of Congress — and all members of the public — were not aware."

The court concludes that it has no qualms about taking this step because if Congress wants to "authorize such a far‐reaching and unprecedented program, it has every opportunity to do so, and to do so unambiguously."

The NSA's collection of phone metadata came back into the spotlight after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked documents that shed light on the program.

One of the first leaked documents was a secret court ruling that ordered Verizon to hand over the telephone metadata of all its customers. Metadata does not mean the content of calls. Instead it means things like time, phone numbers and duration of calls.

Update at 9:57 a.m. ET. Echoes Some Members Of Congress:

NPR's David Welna, who covers national security for the network, tells us the ruling echoes what some members of Congress have been saying. David reports:

"This ruling dovetails with what one of the lead authors of the Patriot Act – former House Judiciary Committee chairman James Sensenbrenner – said last week about section 215: 'I can say in no uncertain terms that Congress did not intend to allow the bulk collection of Americans' records. The government's overbroad collection is based on a blatant misreading of the law.'

"The House Judiciary Committee last week approved a revision of Section 215 that bars bulk data collection under that provision. Sen. Majority leader McConnell has a bill pending that would extend Section 215 without changes until 2020."

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

I think the appeals court bottled this big time. If this is not a violation of the US constitution, then I don't know what the hell is.

The text could not be clearer. Here it is for non-US folk:

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.

I'm not a lawyer, but mass collection of people's phone data, regardless of whether they had committed crimes, or were suspected of committing crimes, is a violation of the unreasonable searches and seizures part of the amendment.

**Tsilber**

The most simple and realistic solutions is for people to simply throw away their cell phone.. I know of no one who was bothered by this and actually did the one thing that is non contestable to solve the problem, throw away your cell phone.

Whats really more important, your constitutional rights or having a cell phone? But instead of the simple solution, most people have become so attached to their cell phones they will argue "well we shouldn't have to get rid of our cell phones". And you may be right, or 100% right, but in the end no one can take any huge steps or make any difference to prevent something like this happening again unless you toss your cell phone away, or get a prepaid cell phone.
Are we really surprised by what any of our Government agencies do anymore?
And before anyone makes any what ifs or hypothetical, my comment is in regards to the cell phone issue alone.
I myself think its wrong they do it, but it doesnt bother me enough to want to file law suits, or start some crusade, or give away my cell phone. Honestly if they here me talking on the phone about how I would kill the false emperor of man kind, and side with Abaddon the next time he wages war, than so be it.

**Ahtman**

Throwing away a cell phone isn't a 'realistic solution' considering the importance of cell phones in modern life.

**Frazzled**

Tsilber wrote:
The most simple and realistic solutions is for people to simply throw away their cell phone.. I know of no one who was bothered by this and actually did the one thing that is non contestable to solve the problem, throw away your cell phone.

Whats really more important, your constitutional rights or having a cell phone? But instead of the simple solution, most people have become so attached to their cell phones they will argue "well we shouldn't have to get rid of our cell phones". And you may be right, or 100% right, but in the end no one can take any huge steps or make any difference to prevent something like this happening again unless you toss your cell phone away, or get a prepaid cell phone.
Are we really surprised by what any of our Government agencies do anymore?
And before anyone makes any what ifs or hypothetical, my comment is in regards to the cell phone issue alone.
I myself think its wrong they do it, but it doesnt bother me enough to want to file law suits, or start some crusade, or give away my cell phone. Honestly if they here me talking on the phone about how I would kill the false emperor of man kind, and side with Abaddon the next time he wages war, than so be it.

You also have to throw away all computer devices including the computer in your car.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Most governments tend to forget that they are servants of the people and not the masters.

True, it's not a perfect world, but nobody should have to throw away their cell phones.

I doubt if Andrew Jackson would have put up with this level of intrusion

**Tsilber**

The importance of Cell phones in modern life is a 2 part, arguable defense. A i own my own business and would do fine without having a cell phone, and what you consider a modern life, may not be what others consider a modern life...
But i do understand the point you are trying to make, and I agree to the extent of the conveyance factor. But the world does not work a "certain way"... Its ones own life to choose how to live and what to want, accept, tolerate, or disallow.

Frazzle, good points.. But as my post said I was referring solo to cell phones. As that is the primary source of Data that is unblockable. A computer has a blockable asset, 15 minutes on google or youtube will show you how to prevent a lot of what was referred to in those documents. Now I do not speak to my cars computer, so not sure what they will find out about me from that, let alone if I have anything illegal in my car at any time...

And I agree, Andrew Jackson and many others of the past would not stand for it, yet they would do something about from a position of influence and power. Our Justice system, politicians loyalties, and Government institutions have swayed far from the path of what was right and justice.

I guess other than throwing away your phones, wait for the Zombie apok, The San Andreas fault or yellowstone to erupt and wipe off 50% of our population, or some other mass doomsday tale to come true, so we can push the reset button.

Was it wrong? Sure, does it disrupt your way of life in anyway? We can argue it, and point to every law, Constitutional right, or past historical figure to make reference to, however to what end? To what end result? Throw away your cell phone is the only sure way, anything short is accepting its the fact of the matter. Honestly, lifes to short to worry about things like this, far greater concerns in the Country that effect you day in and day out, if you must worry, worry about those things.

**kronk**

If women couldn't buy short skirts, they wouldn't get assaulted.

**Manchu**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm not a lawyer, but

Ugh. Why is it that you never read, "I'm not a particle physicist, but" statements on the internet? Instead of writing, "I'm not a a lawyer, but" folks should just write "I don't have the education, knowledge, training, or experience to write about this issue, but."

**whembly**

There's a lot of "yeah, but..." going around these days...

As to the OP:
Good.

Can we finally kill the Patriot Act? Just let it expire...

**Frazzled**

Frazzle, good points.. But as my post said I was referring solo to cell phones. As that is the primary source of Data that is unblockable. A computer has a blockable asset, 15 minutes on google or youtube will show you how to prevent a lot of what was referred to in those documents. Now I do not speak to my cars computer, so not sure what they will find out about me from that, let alone if I have anything illegal in my car at any time...

How are you going to block the computer in your car? In your TVs?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Manchu wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm not a lawyer, but
Ugh. Why is it that you never read, "I'm not a particle physicist, but" statements on the internet? Instead of writing, "I'm not a a lawyer, but" folks should just write "I don't have the education, knowledge, training, or experience to write about this issue, but."

James Madison had never written a constitution before in his life until you know when, but it never stopped him from picking up his quill.

I'm not a lawyer, thank God, but that doesn't mean I can't express a view on the law, or even the US constitution.

**kronk**

Manchu wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm not a lawyer, but
Ugh. Why is it that you never read, "I'm not a particle physicist, but" statements on the internet? Instead of writing, "I'm not a a lawyer, but" folks should just write "I don't have the education, knowledge, training, or experience to write about this issue, but."

I'm not a doctor, but snorting 3 lines of cocaine before flying a plane across the country is probably a bad idea.

**Manchu**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
that doesn't mean I can't express a view on the law, or even the US constitution

By all means, express your views. But perhaps preface them as described above.

**Peregrine**

Tsilber wrote:
Whats really more important, your constitutional rights or having a cell phone?

My cell phone. It provides practical value to me, while my constitutional right in this case provides nothing more than an abstract philosophical argument about privacy. That doesn't mean that the government is right, but the effect of this kind of mass data collection on the average person is negligible.

**d-usa**

If people would just burn down their homes or get a different hotel room every couple weeks then they wouldn't have to worry about unconstitutional search warrants.

Just saying...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kronk wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm not a lawyer, but
Ugh. Why is it that you never read, "I'm not a particle physicist, but" statements on the internet? Instead of writing, "I'm not a a lawyer, but" folks should just write "I don't have the education, knowledge, training, or experience to write about this issue, but."

I'm not a doctor, but snorting 3 lines of cocaine before flying a plane across the country is probably a bad idea.

I'm not a porn star, but 4 inches is average. I promise!

**Ensis Ferrae**

Manchu wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm not a lawyer, but
Ugh. Why is it that you never read, "I'm not a particle physicist, but" statements on the internet? Instead of writing, "I'm not a a lawyer, but" folks should just write "I don't have the education, knowledge, training, or experience to write about this issue, but."

Bout sums that one up.....

Anyhow, yeah as in the OP and Do I Not Like That's comments... I would be pretty damn worried if the courts had decided it was cool to be violating the constitution.

**Breotan**

Frazzled wrote:
How are you going to block the computer in your car? In your TVs?

Bah! Too easy.

First...

Spoiler:

Second...

Spoiler:

**Hordini**

Manchu wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm not a lawyer, but
Ugh. Why is it that you never read, "I'm not a particle physicist, but" statements on the internet? Instead of writing, "I'm not a a lawyer, but" folks should just write "I don't have the education, knowledge, training, or experience to write about this issue, but."

You don't usually see "I'm not a particle physicist, but," but I'm pretty sure I've seen people preface things with "I'm not a scientist, but".

A question though: Don't get me wrong, I know there are a lot of completely bogus opinions out there and a lot of misunderstanding of the law by non-lawyers, but do you really think someone necessarily has to be a lawyer in order to have enough education, knowledge, or experience to form a reasonable opinion about a legal issue and then write about it?

In addition, there are plenty of other professions that take a great deal of education, knowledge, training, or experience to enter into, but even in those cases that doesn't always mean that someone outside the profession can't be educated about the subject and discuss it with at least a modicum of credibility. Although in fairness, we do probably see "I'm not a lawyer, but" more often than "I'm not [insert other profession], but," around here.

Or were you just referring to this particular thread?

**Ahtman**

I don't think he said only lawyers can have opinions, just that he doesn't care for the opener "I'm not a lawyer...". If you are going to say something or opine just do so, no need to say what you aren't.

I'm not a lawyer but I think all the redheads should be executed.

I think all the redheads should be executed.

See? It doesn't really need the preamble.

Unless you are simple country lawyer, then you can preface anything with that.

I may be just a simple country lawyer but I think all the redheads should be executed.

**Hordini**

Ahtman wrote:
I don't think he said only lawyers can have opinions, just that he doesn't care for the opener "I'm not a lawyer...". If you are going to say something or opine just do so, no need to say what you aren't.

I'm not a lawyer but I think all the redheads should be executed.

I think all the redheads should be executed.

See? It doesn't really need the preamble.

Unless you are simple country lawyer, then you can preface anything with that.

I may be just a simple country lawyer but I think all the redheads should be executed.

I didn't say have an opinion, I said have enough education, knowledge, or experience to form a reasonable opinion. There is a difference.

**Manchu**

Hordini wrote:
do you really think someone necessarily has to be a lawyer in order to have enough education, knowledge, or experience to form a reasonable opinion about a legal issue and then write about it?

That really depends on what you mean by "reasonable." Being a lawyer is certainly not sufficient to make a definitive proclamation about the constitutionality of a law (you need to be at least five Supreme Court Justices to do that) ... and yet that is exactly what the poster to whom I responded did. But I don't get the feeling you really had that extreme example in mind. Still, I need more information about what you mean by "reasonable." It seems most people think "constitutional" and "what seems good to me" are one and the same. But that's hardly the basis for a reasonable opinion about the law. And of course one doesn't need a juris doctorate (much less to be a practicing attorney) to think and write about law coherently; there are certainly other ways to study law in this country just as you can be educated about particle physics without earning a Ph.D.

Ahtman wrote:
Unless you are simple country lawyer, then you can preface anything with that.

Yer Onner, I don't know spit about no lawyerin' but ...

See also, "I'm just a caveman ..."

**daedalus**

Manchu wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm not a lawyer, but
Ugh. Why is it that you never read, "I'm not a particle physicist, but" statements on the internet? Instead of writing, "I'm not a a lawyer, but" folks should just write "I don't have the education, knowledge, training, or experience to write about this issue, but."

I can practice particle physics without the BAR.

**Manchu**

daedalus wrote:
I can practice particle physics without the BAR.

Browning Automatic Rifle?

Sounds less fun.

**daedalus**

Huh. I thought it was an acronym for something. Apparently not, but then again, I'm not a lawyer.

Also: It's totally less fun.

**Manchu**

daedalus wrote:
I thought it was an acronym for something.

I thought so; either that or you just felt like inappropriately YELLING that part of your sentence for comic effect.

**sebster**

Manchu wrote:
Ugh. Why is it that you never read, "I'm not a particle physicist, but" statements on the internet? Instead of writing, "I'm not a a lawyer, but" folks should just write "I don't have the education, knowledge, training, or experience to write about this issue, but."

I'm not an internet pundit, but I think you make a very good point there.

**Frazzled**

Breotan wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
How are you going to block the computer in your car? In your TVs?

Bah! Too easy.

First...

Spoiler:

Second...

Spoiler:

Car...you got me.

TV...you now need a converter for the new digital system. Guess what the converter has...Yep COMPUTER CHIPS SENDING MICROWAVES INTO MY BRAIN!!! Good thing I read about this protective helmet online. Its just like magneto's but much cheaper, made from handy grocery store products.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:
daedalus wrote:
I can practice particle physics without the BAR.
Browning Automatic Rifle?

Sounds less fun.

Imagine practicing physics with the BAR.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Frazzled wrote:

Imagine practicing physics with the BAR.

So all that time I spent downrange, and those firefights I got into count towards a physics degree?! Where's my PhD.... I should be Dr. Ensis Ferrae at this point!!

**daedalus**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Imagine practicing physics with the BAR.

So all that time I spent downrange, and those firefights I got into count towards a physics degree?! Where's my PhD.... I should be Dr. Ensis Ferrae at this point!!

Those are "projectile physics", not "particle physics". How much time did you spend with explosives? Those might count.