Civil Liberties Groups Are Suing the NSA

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/aclu-lawsuit-nsa-analysis/66139/

by sethbannon • 13 years ago

280 48 13 years ago

ck22• 13 years ago

Great to hear. This is a "country of laws" as every lawmaker likes to say, so sue this program out of existence.

Within the USA this is a clear violation of the right to free-association (which should also work against drone tracking).

The Atlantic is really churning out great articles on this, another good one from yesterday:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/the-obam...

blahedo• 13 years ago

The Atlantic is really churning out great articles on this, another good one from yesterday

I agree; and anyone else out there who agrees should consider getting a subscription. Information may want to be free, but content production isn't! :) I subscribed last summer, renewed last month, and haven't regretted it.

tjaerv• 13 years ago

"All the way to the legal limit."

Too bad the NSA doesn't observe legal limits.

confluence• 13 years ago

Civil Liberties Groups Are Ganging Up on NSA

That's a very odd turn of phrase. The NSA is a multi-billion dollar behemoth whereas civil liberty groups are just social gadflys.

hnriot• 13 years ago

Yeah, I'm sure the NSA are trembling, if they gave two shits about laws or civil liberties we would be here, so I'm sure this isn't going to do a thing.

mjolk• 13 years ago

Nothing they were doing is illegal, so I'm not sure how you can make a claim that they don't give a shit about laws.

alan_cx• 13 years ago

They will if US voters vote in a President who gives a ....

I suppose the only problem then is, where would they find one?

JulianMorrison2• 13 years ago

They probably actually are a bit worried.

The circular logic they were relying on to make the law go away, "can't sue without standing, can't get standing without evidence, can't get evidence without suing" has been cut at step 3.

bad_user• 13 years ago

Sometimes money and being a privileged government institution is not enough as long as free speech is still allowed. What these groups have is an audience.

It's not a big audience, but it's important to recognize that a lot of people do follow EFF, Reddit and the others in the list of 86 [1] - and because of this the effects can multiply exponentially, because this trial will get news coverage.

You see, government agencies and politicians that violate our rights do so hoping either (a) that people don't find out about it or (b) that people forget about it in a week. But if organizations and companies keep the issue relevant and in the news, then it persists and things can quickly escalate, just as it happened with SOPA or ACTA.

And then you'll also see the online giants protesting it, because first of all, it's bad for business. And then you'll also see street protests, even from other countries. And then you'll finally see the real shit-storm that no amount of money can quickly wash away (although such issues tend to reappear, because those in power tried shoving too many things down our throats at once, who knows, maybe people will grow a social conscience after all).

[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/86-civil-liberties-gro...

mtgx• 13 years ago

I almost wish they didn't do this so soon. Because now the administration probably won't declassify anything else for fear of getting sued over it. I think they should've waited a little more for more leaks to come out of the Guardian and then the public outrage to force them to declassify more. And then gang up on them in full force.

I'm also awaiting for the PRISM lawsuit, which seems a lot more important than the phone records one, to me.

beat• 13 years ago

tl;dr

The ACLU is leading a particularly good suit. As a Verizon customer, their phone records were scanned as well. And as a legal firm handling cases where even the existence of a call to a lawyer is privileged information (ie govt whistleblowers), the system is clearly unconstitutional.

sethbannon• 13 years ago

My favorite bit:

"We cannot mention the letter at the heart of the EFF's demand without noting that it comprises perhaps the most diverse collection of groups in the modern history of American politics."

grappler2• 13 years ago

If you are passionate about the right to bear arms, because you view it as a vital protection against a tyrannical government, I'm curious how you feel about surveillance/collection of all your phone calls, movements, and internet activity.

Why is there massive support in this country for the right to own & use guns, but not for the right to communicate privately and not be tracked and monitored?

Do the same people who view banning guns as a threat not view massive surveillance as a threat?

ollysb• 13 years ago

I really have trouble believing that the real reason people want a gun is so they can fend off the government. To be honest when you consider the opposition(the American military!) I don't know how anyone can say it with a straight face.

gridmaths• 13 years ago

But lets update the technology from when 'right to bear arms' was written ...

If modern arms are cyber-warfare and information flow, then the arms to keep that power in check are computation, math, encryption, anonymity, private messaging, realtime chat, social networks, web graphics ...

So the right to bear arms in todays terms, I would argue, _is_ the right to a) private internet communications between parties and b) public information broadcast to everyone

willurd5• 13 years ago

I hear this one a lot. "The military is so big, they have missiles, drones, etc etc etc, you could never defeat them in battle." This argument has several flaws:

1. This is just more proof that we (the people) need to hold on to whatever arms we can get. We've mistakenly let our military accrue a cache and kind of weaponry that we have not allowed even ourselves to possess. If the powder keg does explode, less arms is not better than more.

2. Many service men and women take their pledge to uphold the constitution very seriously, and would not take up arms against the American people (and most likely would take up arms against a tyrannical government, should it come to that). This is why many veterans are proclaimed mentally incompetent and disarmed (http://www.benefits.va.gov/pensionandfiduciary/fiduciary/ben..., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NlBgtIeU1s).

3. There are 1.5 million active military personnel and 850 thousand reserves (Wikipedia). There 311 million Americans, not including the roughly 3 million that are active or reserve military personnel. We are a bigger force by far.

4. "You're going to die if you fight." Appeal to emotion.

5. "How can you even say that with a straight face." Appeal to ridicule.

6. There are many reasons to "want a gun" beyond protecting yourself from tyranny, including self defense from criminals, sport, hunting and recreation. But "wanting" has nothing to do with it. You don't need to explain why you want a gun and you don't have to show a "need" for it. It is your inalienable (seriously, look this word up, ponder its meaning) right. It cannot be taken from you (though you can give it up willingly, I suppose).

EDIT:

7. In 2011, Ron Paul received 6 times (http://ronpaulronpaul.com/) more in contributions from active military personnel than all of the other republican candidates combined. For those that don't know, Ron Paul ran on a campaign of small government, less war, etc. That should tell you where our military stands on this matter.

sneak• 13 years ago

The people bearing arms isn't to shoot at the government. That's a common misconception.

It's a deterrent - enough people armed and willing to shoot at the government means that the government doesn't come knocking to create the situation wherein everyone loses.

It's basically p2p/distributed mutually assured destruction.

Eric Blair (who's ratings are spiking on Amazon this week, incidentally) once wrote: "That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or laborer’s cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."

"Stays there" both in the RKBA sense, and "stays there" in the "above the mantel and not taken down out of necessity" sense.

philwelch• 13 years ago

1. Iraqis did it.

2. You're more likely to be in combat against DHS/ATF/FBI, not military. You're even more likely to be in combat against local cops.

jacoblyles3• 13 years ago

If we were writing a Constitution nowadays, I would certainly support explicit protections for the right to privacy in all forms of communication and the right to use encryption technology. The principles of the Constitution are very good but the language is too outdated to withstand the concerted effort of cynical men seeking to expand their power.

Of course, I also support the right to bear arms. We need new protections from our government. Now is not the time to be wolves, not little lost sheep in search of a protector.

tokipin• 13 years ago

"guns" are just part of the guns-gods-gays social trifecta. it's reactionary language joyfully kindled by gun manufacturers. the "second amendment", etc is an appendix for the sake of politics

willurd5• 13 years ago

Oh gods of HN, grant me thine Downvote Dagger that I may smite this post.

Jayschwa• 13 years ago

If you are passionate about the right to bear arms, because you view it as a vital protection against a tyrannical government, I'm curious how you feel about surveillance/collection of all your phone calls, movements, and internet activity.

I support both the 2nd and the 4th amendments.

I think the reason you don't hear as much of an outcry about surveillance is because it is usually not noticeable, whereas weapons restrictions are very noticeable if you're someone who takes an interest in them.

jacoblyles3• 13 years ago

Now what will you do when the Supreme Court finds the NSA's programs to be unconstitutional and they keep doing it anyway?

unclebucknasty• 13 years ago

At that point, it becomes overtly criminal. If, in that event, the law isn't upheld (i.e. via appropriate punishment), then we will be witnessing the complete and unquestionable dismantling of our nation.

jacoblyles3• 13 years ago

I'll just leave this here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5862676

ck22• 13 years ago

This is the first time I've seen an article posted on HN with the original title to start with - and then the title is changed by a mod?

Is it opposite day?

Civil Liberties Groups Are Suing the NSA

Related Stories