PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Court Upholds NSA Phone-Records Spying in Ruling




Lucille
09-20-2013, 01:20 PM
Whatever.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-17/u-s-court-upholds-nsa-phone-records-spying-in-ruling.html


The National Security Agency’s collection of phone records complies with the Constitution, and the government has shown it’s necessary to efforts to prevent terrorism, a U.S. court said in an opinion released yesterday.

Members of Congress were notified or given the opportunity to be notified about the intelligence-gathering and they reauthorized the USA Patriot Act section that allows it, according to the opinion by a judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees NSA’s surveillance programs.

The ruling also said that no telephone company has challenged the government’s authority to collect the records.

The court released the July opinion by U.S. District Court Judge Claire Eagan, who serves on the secret court. The judge wrote that she was requesting that her opinion be released “because of the public interest in this matter.”

The program was disclosed by former U.S. government contractor Edward Snowden, who fled to Russia, where he has temporary asylum. The NSA collects bulk phone records, such as numbers and call durations, under a USA Patriot Act provision that lets the government compel U.S. companies to turn over “any tangible thing” that is relevant to a terrorism probe.

Eagan wrote that because “it is necessary to obtain the bulk collection of a telephone company’s metadata to determine those connections between known and unknown international terrorist operatives,” the government has shown that the program doesn’t violate the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

National Security

The government’s interest in acquiring information “when it is attempting to thwart attacks and disrupt activities that could harm national security” is greater than when it is investigating domestic crimes, the judge wrote.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said in a statement that the release of the previously classified opinion “is consistent with the president’s call for more transparency on these valuable intelligence programs.”

Nate Cardozo, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based privacy group that has sued the government to stop the program, said the court order is flawed because it assumes that all lawmakers were given the opportunity to learn the NSA was collecting and storing phone records in bulk.

The opinion “hangs its hat on the fact that Congress approved the program and that’s, as a matter of fact, not true,” Cardozo said in an interview.

“This is a single judge only hearing one side of the argument,” Cardozo said. “Now we know for certain that no telecom has ever stood up for the rights of its users.”

Cardozo said the court also is wrong to conclude that phone customers don’t have a reasonable right to privacy when it comes to their records.

Eagan’s order reauthorizes the program until Oct. 11.

puppetmaster
09-20-2013, 01:22 PM
They will be held accoutable

WM_in_MO
09-20-2013, 01:37 PM
Bought and paid for.

Occam's Banana
09-21-2013, 01:09 AM
No new news here - just government giving itself permission to do what it wants to do. Ain't no big surprise ...

A Son of Liberty
09-21-2013, 03:31 AM
No new news here - just government giving itself permission to do what it wants to do. Ain't no big surprise ...

When I saw the thread title, I figured I'd come in and post, "US government approves of US government program", but I see you already beat me to it. :)

tod evans
09-21-2013, 04:08 AM
"Just-Us"

GunnyFreedom
09-21-2013, 05:07 AM
Pssht! Silly sheep, the fourth amendment doesn't mean what it actually says, the fourth amendment means what we tell you it means! Now sit down and shut up or we'll send the law after you to taze you and handcuff you for attempting to disrupt our petty tyrannies.

asurfaholic
09-21-2013, 05:40 AM
So if I band a group of criminals together, call it a court, and rule in my own favor without any real oversight- does that mean i can then do whatever I want?

jtstellar
09-21-2013, 05:41 AM
nsa knows which child they slept with

say i'm glad john stossel stopped with that 'i don't think nsa is that important' schtick

asurfaholic
09-21-2013, 05:41 AM
THE ANSWER IS NO. Fuck this "court's" ruling

tod evans
09-21-2013, 05:47 AM
Time to play "dunk the clown"...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zgYCga7yM2M/UMZGt-Aa-pI/AAAAAAAAAiU/oyjsmYgKooY/s640/Fair+1.JPG

Anti Federalist
09-21-2013, 05:55 AM
The court released the July opinion by U.S. District Court Judge Claire Eagan, who serves on the secret court

Secret courts authorizing secret activities against the AmeriKan people, is secret.

Yup, nothing to see here.

Outside, it's AmeriKa.

Anti Federalist
09-21-2013, 06:00 AM
They will be held accoutable

No they won't.

If we were half the people we were 200 some odd years ago, these tyrants would already be hanging by their own innards from the nearest tree.

But we're not.

So hear we sit, and continue to sit, as the surveillance state gains power, exponentially, every day.

JustinTime
09-21-2013, 07:20 AM
I wonder if District Court Judge Claire Eagan wasn't spied upon by NSA and perhaps some embarrassing information was threatened to be leaked?

donnay
09-21-2013, 07:53 AM
Time to go back to the string and can. Tyranny will come from within...the terrorists are US!

"Tyranny naturally arises out of democracy."
~ Plato

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."~ Thomas Jefferson

"A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny."
~ Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

"The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections." ~ Lord Acton

LibertyEagle
09-21-2013, 09:25 AM
What happened to PROBABLE CAUSE, Judge???

FSP-Rebel
09-21-2013, 12:33 PM
381486229675458560

ZENemy
09-21-2013, 12:39 PM
So the Mafia says its ok for the Mafia to do its Mafia things?

angelatc
09-21-2013, 12:40 PM
Pssht! Silly sheep, the fourth amendment doesn't mean what it actually says, the fourth amendment means what we tell you it means! Now sit down and shut up or we'll send the law after you to taze you and handcuff you for attempting to disrupt our petty tyrannies.

We lost this battle back in the '70's, when they decided we had no reasonable expectation of privacy when we dialed a phone number from our home phone. I heartily disagreed with that decision, but the precedent was there.

dillo
09-21-2013, 12:47 PM
I guess they should ban guns to, hey if its to prevent terrorism or for national security they can apparently do whatever the fuck they want

HOLLYWOOD
09-21-2013, 02:58 PM
Bought and paid for. http://steynian.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/imagesizer.jpg?w=530

nobody's_hero
09-21-2013, 04:05 PM
I guess they should ban guns to, hey if its to prevent terrorism or for national security they can apparently do whatever the fuck they want

Maybe they won't "ban" guns, per se. They'll just "bulk collect" them because they know a criminal out there used a gun and they have to check everyone's guns to make sure they don't have the one used in the crime.


“it is necessary to obtain the bulk collection of a telephone company’s metadata to determine those connections between known and unknown international terrorist operatives,”

Taking one person's data is unreasonable. Taking everyone's data makes it okay though, lol.

presence
09-21-2013, 04:18 PM
file under:


"fuck you, that's why"