What does a broken record sound like? Read the first line of the ruling: <a href="http://i.imgur.com/y8LZQUM.png" rel="nofollow">http://i.imgur.com/y8LZQUM.png</a>
Those of you who want a political answer to this surveillance problem should pay attention when these things happen. This is your system, in a nutshell. The legislators, judges, law enforcement officials, etc, are all in on this. Don't wait for the president or prime minister to change things. That won't happen. You'll have to take your security into your own hands to the greatest extent possible. This will including learning to adapt once your government inevitably outlaws your favourite means of protecting your security and privacy.
As there are more trial court decisions on the NSA programs, it appears that there will be a split in results of those decisions among various trial courts. Those decisions can be appealed to the federal circuit appellate courts, where there may again be a split among the decisions. A circuit split[1] on an important issue of federal law, especially constitutional law, is one of the most reliable ways to prompt consideration of an issue by the United States Supreme Court. That court will have the last word[2] on this issue.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_split" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_split</a><p>[2] "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final." A saying by Justice H. Jackson.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Jackson" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Jackson</a>
> "Judge Pauley said that protections under the Fourth Amendment do not apply to records held by third parties, like phone companies."<p>The thing I don't get is why the NSA is considered a third party here. It's not the phone companies keeping the records, it's the NSA, so I honestly do not understand this ruling.
> "Judge Pauley said that protections under the Fourth Amendment do not apply to records held by third parties, like phone companies."<p>Kafka would be proud.
This system is totally broken. The federal government receives funding to do things that the general public despises, in secret, and then, if caught, the courts decide the legality of it <i>ex post facto</i>.<p>The U.S. federal government makes far too many decisions that are no longer accountable to the public. This is an extremely dangerous situation to be in, and if we don't have some serious reform done then I believe we are in for a very shitty future.
Links[0] to the article without a login; if you aren't subscribing to NY times, and/or don't intend to.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=N.S.A.Phone+surveillance+is+lawful%2C+Federal+Judge+Rules&oq=N.S.A.Phone+surveillance+is+lawful%2C+Federal+Judge+Rules&aqs=chrome..69i57.24352j0j4&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.com/search?q=N.S.A.Phone+surveillance+is+...</a><p>[1] <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2013%2F12%2F28%2Fus%2Fnsa-phone-surveillance-is-lawful-federal-judge-rules.html&ei=Ir69UqfCD4bL2wXJ8IHABA&usg=AFQjCNFJCwy7dnqcC0tRh8qyYf_fnrN7HQ&sig2=fakTN9RZ3rKauGyA_ym1pw&bvm=bv.58187178,d.b2I" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&u...</a>
<i>"Technology allowed al Qaeda to operate decentralized and plot international terrorist attacks remotely," Pauley wrote. "The bulk telephony metadata collection program represents the government's counter-punch."</i><p>Following this line of reasoning, as technology advances, there is no limit to what data can be gathered in to stop "terrorism."<p>This ruling highlights the fact that there can be no political solution to ending the U.S. surveillance state as long as those in power believe this or at least find it profitable. The remedy has to be technological. Citizens need to be encrypting all their communications to make mass surveillance prohibitively expensive.
Unreal. for some perspective, from: <a href="https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/contactUs/faq.aspx" rel="nofollow">https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/contactUs/faq.aspx</a><p>"4. Can Postal Inspectors open mail if they feel it may contain something illegal?
First-Class letters and parcels are protected against search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and, as such, cannot be opened without a search warrant. If there is probable cause to believe the contents of a First-Class letter or parcel violate federal law, Postal Inspectors can obtain a search warrant to open the mailpiece. Other classes of mail do not contain private correspondence, and therefore may be opened without a warrant."<p>So the phone companies are a third party. The postal service is not.
Lawful ≠ Constitutional.<p>The patriot act made all these "legal" - but aren't we waiting for a supreme court decision that states that the entire collection is "unconstitutional"?
I can't imagine how the Justice Sotomayor could have been any more clear in this issue:<p><pre><code> I would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed
to some member of the public for a limited purpose is,
for that reason alone, disentitled to Fourth Amendment protection.
[citations omitted]
Resolution of these difficult questions in this case is unnecessary,
however, because the Government's physical intrusion on Jones' Jeep
supplies a narrower basis for decision.
</code></pre>
<a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf</a><p>When Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan feel surveillance is so obviously unconstitutional as to provide an even narrower basis than <i>actual trespassing</i>, and Sotomayor writes a separate opinion for the sole purpose of conveying she'd be the 4th vote, I find it hard to imagine how any judge could uphold this surveillance in good faith.
For the lazy, here's the full text of the opinion on Casetext: <a href="https://casetext.com/case/aclu-v-clapper/" rel="nofollow">https://casetext.com/case/aclu-v-clapper/</a>
Who cares what is legal/illegal. That's missing the point. Under the PATRIOT Act raping and torturing infants is legal[1]. When corrupt politicians make corrupt laws, the only thing that should matter is what is morally correct. Or to quote John Oliver of the Daily Show,<p>> I think you're misunderstanding the perceived problem here, Mr. President. No one is saying you broke any laws. We're just saying it's a little bit weird that you didn't have to.<p>[1] probably.
Sure, Your Honor, and what about JSOC assassinating American citizens. Why even bother with warrants or legal process the rest of the time? Throw it all away. Just let the executive branch do whatever the fuck they like (contrary to the intention of separations of powers) with their own mercenary army that's beyond the law. The only problem then is why should anyone respect the law if said executive branch doesn't?
Hopefully SCOTUS will say something else, but I'm not holding my breath. Eventually the content of the phone calls will also be found to be not private as we are using a 3rd party to communicate, so in the end all electronic communication will thus be available for recording and interpretation legally by the government. What kind of world that will be is unknown, but it won't be one anyone wants to live in.
I am curious about what % of Americans consider this a <i>real issue</i> vs those who <i>just don't care</i>.<p>Of course HN is a tech community, understands the repercussions and it's very sensitive on the matter.<p>I am asking because we're possibly facing a huge (maybe the biggest) gap between voters and government here.
If that's how the law works - guess it's time to abandon all cloud-based services. There's seemingly zero protection for anything hosted by a 3rd party.
Reminds me of this quote from our favorite space saga:<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz20lu2AM2k" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz20lu2AM2k</a>
Do we, as the creators of this data, not retain IP rights over it? Are we unable to use the laws written by the other big cartel against the promiscuous use of it?
> "Judge Pauley said that protections under the Fourth Amendment do not apply to records held by third parties, like phone companies."<p>Okay, so then when I download an MP3 it's not theft because I didn't actually deprive the artist of their source files.