BREAKING: NSA Phone Surveillance Is Legal, New York (Federal) Judge Rules - AP/HuffPo

[WillyT]

NSA Phone Surveillance Is Legal, New York Judge Rules
AP/HuffPo
12/27/13 11:33 AM ET EST

<snip>

NEW YORK (AP) — A federal judge in New York has ruled that a massive federal phone-tracking program is legal.

U.S. District Judge William Pauley issued the decision Friday. He says the program "represents the government's counter-punch" to eliminate al-Qaida's terror network by connecting fragmented and fleeting communications.

In ruling, the judge noted the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and how the phone data-collection system could have helped investigators connect the dots before the attacks occurred.

He says the government learned from its mistake and "adapted to confront a new enemy: a terror network capable of orchestrating attacks across the world." He said the data-collection program was part of the adjustment.

He dismissed a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union...

<snip>

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/27/nsa-phone-surveillance_n_4508483.html

[PowerToThePeople]

1. William Pauley, fascist scum

[malaise]

16. Isn't he a Clinton appointee? n/t

[PowerToThePeople]

17. It appears so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._Pauley_III

[malaise]

20. Not appears

It is so

[randome]

2. It's disingenuous to call it 'surveillance'.

All the NSA is doing -so far as we know- is keeping copies of the telecom data in case they are needed. Hundreds of government agencies -local, state, federal- keep copies of your data, including phone, tax information, etc.

So long as there are solid protections in place to prevent abuse, most people don't care.

Even Snowden couldn't get his hands on any of this data. If he had, we would all be having a much different conversation.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[grantcart]

19. To some it is spying on the level of Nazi Germany.

You are of course correct, if it is anything it surveillance of networks.

In any case it should be easy enough to require the phone companies to maintain the data and do the paperwork for a warrant each time that they want to search for what almost certainly is to try and figure out what prepaid phones are calling what other prepaid phones that are known to be accessed by terrorists, a reasonable exercise with sufficient probable cause.

If the police had a phone number of a person who was known to part of a murder conspiracy they would be considered incompetent if they didn't try to identify the others that they were communicating with and conversations between prepaid phones would be at the top of the list.

[klook]

3. The argument isn't about whether the NSA dragnet is effective,

but whether it's legal per our constitution. Unannounced house-to-house warrantless searches might be effective at catching some bad guys, but it wouldn't be legal - yet.

[bobduca]

4. Makes some pretty stupid assertions " government learned from its mistake"

the mistake being what? Bush's inability to respond to clear and present dangers highlighted by Condi Rice in memos?

"the program "represents the government's counter-punch" to eliminate al-Qaida's terror network by connecting fragmented and fleeting communications. "

These claims are purely political and have no merit, and can't be verified... therefore it will stand in post-911 'murica.

[snot]

5. Waiting to find out if he happened to consider the Fourth Amendment . . .

[jeff47]

10. No need.

There's a 1979 SCOTUS ruling declaring metadata belongs to the phone companies, so the individual has no 4th amendment protection on the data.

That precedent is pretty much spot-on to this case. This judge can not reverse a SCOTUS precedent. This ruling is just one of the steps to get to the SCOTUS to see if they'll reverse their precedent. I'm betting 5-4 no change.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. This will go all the way to the Supremes

and I fear the current Roberts Court will agree with this judge. You all can kiss the 4th amendment good bye. Sooner or later this will become the kind of nation that actually led to the Bill of Rights. It is NOT a happy thought.

[jeff47]

11. "can kiss"?

The relevant SCOTUS precedent is from 1979. The SCOTUS ruled that phone metadata belongs to the phone company, so the individual has no right to privacy regarding phone metadata. In fact, your phone company has been selling your metadata for years.

You're a few decades too late for the doomsday you are predicting.

[xchrom]

7. .

[DisgustipatedinCA]

8. I completely disagree, and I hope higher courts do too. nt

[jeff47]

9. Before flying too much into a rage

you have to keep in mind there's a 1979 SCOTUS precedent on this very subject.

In that case, phone metadata for an individual was collected and the data was used to help convict that individual. The SCOTUS ruled that the data belonged to the phone company, and so the individual had no right to privacy regarding the data.

Since then, the phone companies have been selling your metadata. The disclosure of that is buried in the fine print of your contract or bills. The NSA are actually "late" to the metadata business.

This ruling complies very nicely with the 1979 precedent. The other recent ruling declaring the program illegal required the judge to ignore this precedent based on the theory that collecting everyone's data is different than collecting one person's data. It's interesting that this judge's ruling is the exact opposite - in this ruling, they think the individual case calls for higher scrutiny, but the broad collection does not.

Btw, if you've been waiting for the courts to "fix" the metadata problem, you've been doing it wrong. Congress needs to pass a law to fix it.

[rgbecker]

12. Follow the money: When Google, Facebook and Twitter can't sell...

their services because people think everything will be going into NSA's database, things will rapidly change.

It's very different for the phone companies to be storing up "Megadata" than for the government to do so. When the government needs the data they can ask the FISA court for access. If the data is in NSA's hands, there is no check on the access. Already it has been reported that NSA employees have looked into individual records with impunity. Why is it different? The phone companies have no power to jail and execute members of the public while the government is doing it daily. Not to mention bomb from remote controlled death machines with no judicial trial or oversight.

[spanone]

13. well, with this court of supremes, we are fucked.

[LittleBlue]

14. Appointed by Bill Clinton

Surprise, surprise, he turns out to be a government toady.

[Number23]

15. Wow.

[Lost_Count]

18. Color me shocked...