Federal Judge Rules NSA Surveillance Unconstitutional

[Edgetho]

And that's all I have. But it's a Big Deal™

Judge deals blow to NSA phone data program | Fox News

A federal judge ruled Monday that the National Security Agency's bulk collection of phone records likely violates the Constitution, in a major setback for the controversial spy agency.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon granted a preliminary injunction sought by plaintiffs Larry Klayman and Charles Strange. However, he also stayed his decision "pending appeal," giving the U.S. government time to fight the decision over the next several months.

The judge wrote that he expects the government to "prepare itself to comply with this order when, and if, it is upheld."

The ruling was the first major legal defeat for the NSA since former contractor Edward Snowden began exposing secrets about the NSA's data collection over the summer.

Leon granted the injunction sought by plaintiffs Larry Klayman and Charles Strange, concluding they were likely to prevail in their constitutional challenge. Leon, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, ruled that the two men are likely to be able to show that their privacy interests outweigh the government's interest in collecting the data. Leon says that means the massive collection program is an unreasonable search under the Constitution's Fourth Amendment.

"The Fourth Amendment typically requires 'a neutral and detached authority be interposed between the police and the public,' and it is offended by 'general warrants' and laws that allow searches to be conducted 'indiscriminately and without regard to their connections with a crime under investigation,'" he wrote.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

The perfesser's not impressed, although I'm sure he applauds the decision.

NSA Surveillance Court Decision | Injunction | 4th Amendment

 

[waltky]

Granny says if dey come peekin' inna bathroom winda when she takin' a shower - dey gonna get a load o' rocksalt from her 12ga. Mossburg...

NSA gets win in court over bulk data collection
Fri December 27, 2013 ~ The ruling makes it likely the Supreme Court will have to tackle the issue of privacy; A federal judge rules the NSA collection of phone metadata is legal; A different judge said last week the surveillance was likely unconstitutional; Former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed the extent of the surveillance

The National Security Agency notched a much-needed win in court, after a series of setbacks over the legality and even the usefulness of its massive data collection program. A federal judge in New York ruled Friday that the National Security Agency's bulk collection of data on nearly every phone call made in the United States is legal. The ruling contrasts with another ruling last week by a federal judge in Washington, who called the same program "almost Orwellian" and likely unconstitutional.

In his ruling Friday, U.S. District Judge William Pauley said that while the NSA's program under Section 215 of the Patriot Act has become the center of controversy since it was revealed by leaks by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, it is legal. The program was revealed in classified leaks by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. "But the question of whether that program should be conducted is for the other two coordinate branches of government to decide," said the ruling by Pauley, an appointee of President Bill Clinton.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the case, said it would appeal Pauley's ruling. "We are extremely disappointed with this decision, which misinterprets the relevant statutes, understates the privacy implications of the government's surveillance and misapplies a narrow and outdated precedent to read away core constitutional protections," said Jameel Jaffer, the ACLU's deputy legal director. President Barack Obama is examining a review of the surveillance efforts that recommended changes in how the NSA program was conducted. Obama said last week he would decide what to do about it in January.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon said the NSA's bulk collection of metadata -- phone records of the time and numbers called without any disclosure of content -- apparently violates privacy rights. His preliminary ruling favored five plaintiffs challenging the practice, but Leon limited the decision only to their cases. "I cannot imagine a more 'indiscriminate' and 'arbitrary invasion' than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval," said Leon, an appointee of President George W. Bush. "Surely, such a program infringes on 'that degree of privacy' that the Founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment."

More Judge rules NSA collection of phone records is legal - CNN.com

 

[NoVote]

My question is, why do judges get to decide what law is obeyed and what law isn't? I thought there use to be a congress, senate and executive branch of the government involved with the making of laws. Should not the law be floated in front of the judges to check it's legality against the Constitution BEFORE it goes prime time? Assuming the lawmakers are not qualified to decide that. Are we now parting out our legislation?

 

[Moonglow]

My question is, why do judges get to decide what law is obeyed and what law isn't? I thought there use to be a congress, senate and executive branch of the government involved with the making of laws. Should not the law be floated in front of the judges to check it's legality against the Constitution BEFORE it goes prime time? Assuming the lawmakers are not qualified to decide that. Are we now parting out our legislation?

It has been done this way since the country was founded.

 

[NoVote]

My question is, why do judges get to decide what law is obeyed and what law isn't? I thought there use to be a congress, senate and executive branch of the government involved with the making of laws. Should not the law be floated in front of the judges to check it's legality against the Constitution BEFORE it goes prime time? Assuming the lawmakers are not qualified to decide that. Are we now parting out our legislation?

It has been done this way since the country was founded.

Possibly, but in my lifetime, I do not remember it being used a couple times a week. Just saying.... Doesn't it seem like something is wrong there?

 

[Abishai100]

New World Order: American Cuckoo

Our new age Surveillance Society makes us feel better about 9/11 conspiracy theories but more uncomfortable about privacy economics.

NSA policy legality issues regarding electronic surveillance is not un-related to intellectual property cases.

The street-graffiti in America seems to reflect a general if subtle social interest in openly talking about the privacy issues raised by domestic-security matters-related surveillance initiatives.

You can watch sci-fi movie characters such as Neo from the Wachowski Brothers' avant-garde Hollywood (USA) production "The Matrix" (1999), a cyber-surfing freedom-fighter battling the diabolical coldness of a world controlled by surveillance machines. You can read about the Spider-Man (Marvel Comics) mutant nemesis Video-Man, a super-villain who has the magical ability to invade electrical wires and computing machines and create havoc and distortion of signals.

The more progressive talk there is recorded, the more motivated law students there will be to take up the reins on this very modern problem.





Enemy of the State film - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia